Update Security model section
This commit is contained in:
parent
47e1f528b8
commit
78d315d76a
@ -337,37 +337,57 @@ assures customers and merchants that the exchange operates correctly.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Security model}
|
\subsection{Security model}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Taler's security model assumes that cryptographic primitives are
|
Taler assumes that each participant has full control over their system.
|
||||||
secure and that each participant is under full control of his system.
|
In particular, cloud operator create an intractable insider threat.
|
||||||
% FIXME: Jeff, can you concisely state the precise assumpitons?
|
|
||||||
% (i.e. hardness of EC-DLOG for refresh, RSA assumption, hash collision resistance (?))
|
|
||||||
The contact information of the exchange is known to both customer and
|
|
||||||
merchant from the start. We further assume that the customer can
|
|
||||||
authenticate the merchant, e.g. using X.509
|
|
||||||
certificates~\cite{rfc6818}. Finally, we assume that customer has an
|
|
||||||
anonymous bi-directional channel, such as Tor, to communicate with
|
|
||||||
both the exchange and the merchant.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The exchange is trusted to hold funds of its customers and to forward
|
We assume the contact information of the exchange is known to
|
||||||
them when receiving the respective deposit instructions from the
|
both customer and merchant from the start. We further assume that
|
||||||
merchants. Customer and merchant can have assurances about the
|
the customer can authenticate the merchant, such as by using X.509
|
||||||
|
certificates~\cite{rfc6818}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A Taler exchange is trusted to hold funds of its customers and to
|
||||||
|
forward them when receiving the respective deposit instructions from
|
||||||
|
the merchants. Customer and merchant can have assurances about the
|
||||||
exchange's liquidity and operation though published audits by
|
exchange's liquidity and operation though published audits by
|
||||||
financial regulators or other trusted third parties.
|
financial regulators or other trusted third parties.
|
||||||
Online signing keys expire regularly, allowing the exchange to
|
|
||||||
eventually destroy the corresponding accumulated cryptographic proofs.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The merchant is trusted to deliver the service or goods to the
|
We reiterate that an exchange must secure both its keys, especially
|
||||||
|
its denomination key, and its databases of customer reserve accounts
|
||||||
|
and of spent coins. An exchange's denomination signing keys do
|
||||||
|
expire regularly though, allowing the exchange to eventually destroy
|
||||||
|
the corresponding accumulated cryptographic proofs, and limiting the
|
||||||
|
exchange's financial liabiltiy in the case of insider attacks.
|
||||||
|
On the cryptohgraphic side, a Taler exchange demands that coins use a
|
||||||
|
full domain hash (FDH) to make so-called ``one-more forgery'' attacks
|
||||||
|
provably hard, assuming the RSA known-target inversion problem is
|
||||||
|
hard~\cite[Theorem 12]{RSA-HDF-KTIvCTI}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A Taler merchant is trusted to deliver the service or goods to the
|
||||||
customer upon receiving payment. The customer can seek legal relief
|
customer upon receiving payment. The customer can seek legal relief
|
||||||
to achieve this, as he receives cryptographic proofs of the contract
|
to achieve this, as he receives cryptographic proofs of the contract
|
||||||
and has proof that he paid his obligations.
|
and has proof that he paid his obligations.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Neither the merchant nor the customer have any ability to {\em effectively}
|
All combined, there are phesable methods for merchants and customers
|
||||||
defraud the exchange or the state collecting taxes. Here, ``effectively''
|
to defraud the exchange, without insider access. There are no effective
|
||||||
means that the expected return for fraud is negative.
|
methods for merchants and customers to conceal a merchants income,
|
||||||
%
|
thereby enabling extortion or defrauding tax collectors, assuming that
|
||||||
%Note that customers do not need to be trusted in any way, and that in
|
the maximum tax rate is below $1/\kappa$ and that
|
||||||
%particular it is never necessary for anyone to try to recover funds
|
the customer is unwilling to pay $\kappa$ times the price.
|
||||||
%from customers using legal coersion.
|
|
||||||
|
\smallskip
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We assume each Taler customer has an anonymous bi-directional channel,
|
||||||
|
such as Tor, to communicate with both the exchange and the merchant.
|
||||||
|
In particular, we note that customers should be anonymous when ther
|
||||||
|
Taler wallet makes {\tt /keys} requests, which may impose requirements
|
||||||
|
on the usage of teh anonymous channel.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For a withdrawn coin, we believe violating the customers anonymity
|
||||||
|
cryptographily requires recognizing a random blinding factor from a
|
||||||
|
random element of the group of integers modulo the denomination key's
|
||||||
|
RSA modulus, which appears impossible even with a quantum computers.
|
||||||
|
For a refreshed coin, unlinkabiltiy requires the hardness of the
|
||||||
|
discrete logarithm in curve25519.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Taxability and Entities}
|
\subsection{Taxability and Entities}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user