Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Rethink the security analysis table #28

Closed
trishankatdatadog opened this issue Oct 15, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Rethink the security analysis table #28

trishankatdatadog opened this issue Oct 15, 2019 · 2 comments
Assignees
@mnm678
Milestone
PEP 458: second d...

Comments

@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Collaborator

Maybe re-think the table. There are multiple instances that describe how,
snapshot, timestamp and/or bin-n roles need to cooperate for an attacker to be successful, which seems less meaningful when these roles share the same online key, which is recommend in this pep.
@JustinCappos
Copy link

Chatted with @mnm678 about this and #26 . She'll make a new table that is more accurate in conveying that to ease operational burden some keys may be shared (so will be compromised together). She will collapse the table and move the current one to PEP 480.

This was referenced Oct 17, 2019
Merged
Closed
@JustinCappos
Copy link

Closed by #43

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@mnm678 mnm678

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
PEP 458: second draft
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@JustinCappos @mnm678 @trishankatdatadog