Re:Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge
by windows_tips on Thursday July 12, 2018 @08:41AM
(#17513838)
Email is a plaintext protocol, so having a number in an email really just means that you saw the email, not that you know Peggy's password.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge
by jasode on Thursday July 12, 2018 @09:49AM
(#17514500)
Right. It's not irrefutable proof beyond all standards of doubt but it's "enough proof" to Vimeo/verifier that Peggy controls that email account. Whatever arbitrary threshold of proof it is, it's in in the eye of the beholder (the verifier). It's up to Vimeo to arbitrarily decide that getting a matching number is "verifying" Peggy's email account.
Instead of the "proof" aspect, the email example is highlighting what the "zero knowledge" refers to. Whether Peggy's account is compromised or wiretapped by man-in-the-middle attacks, Vimeo/verifier still has zero knowledge of her email account's password.
Re:Bulletproofs – Short zero-knowledge arguments of knowledge
by windows_tips on Thursday July 12, 2018 @11:23AM
(#17515503)
If Peggy has to use the password since recieving the email, vimeo could put bounds on the password length, at least.