"While the analyses by Watanabe [Wat13] and Sakurada [Sak13] in some sense confirm authentication and key secrecy properties of PLAID under the assumption of idealized cryptographic primitives, we—as already discussed in our paper—disagree with considering them as “cryptographic proofs” as the project editor’s report does. In particular, these analyses do not consider privacy aspects."
5) We never meant to compare PLAID and OPACITY. As it is good practice in academic works, we are required to cite every relevant other work which has anything to do with PLAID. In this case, we mention that someone has given a look at PLAID and compared it with OPACITY, another smart-card protocol, but notice that we do not say anything about comparing the two. The fact that some of the authors of "Unpicking PLAID" are also authors of another paper analyzing OPACITY is a mere coincidence. I do not understand this complaint by the PLAID Project Editor... It is like if you write a paper about post-quantum cryptography, cite a work where people compare the hardware speed of some post-quantum scheme with that of some RSA scheme, and then someone complains that you cited a work talking about RSA which is not post-quantum...
Author of submission here. I agree with you xeno, but this is just my personal view and does not necessarily reflect the one of all the people involved. In our paper we used "moot" when intended, and "mute" when quoting from the PLAID editor's report, as it is the usual good practice. But, disclaimer: as a non-native English speaker, I cannot be sure whether "mute" could also be used in some Australian slang with the intended meaning. Thanks for pointing that out!
I'm the author of the original submission. There was a mistake in the story, as we never contacted AusCERT, but CERT Australia instead. The similarity of the names was a bit unfortunate. I apologize for this error. Could some moderator please edit the submission? Thank you!
Slashdot Mirror
Author of submission here. All correct, moreover:
3) As we state in our response:
"While the analyses by Watanabe [Wat13] and Sakurada [Sak13] in some sense confirm authentication
and key secrecy properties of PLAID under the assumption of idealized cryptographic primitives, we—as
already discussed in our paper—disagree with considering them as “cryptographic proofs” as the project
editor’s report does. In particular, these analyses do not consider privacy aspects."
5) We never meant to compare PLAID and OPACITY. As it is good practice in academic works, we are required to cite every relevant other work which has anything to do with PLAID. In this case, we mention that someone has given a look at PLAID and compared it with OPACITY, another smart-card protocol, but notice that we do not say anything about comparing the two. The fact that some of the authors of "Unpicking PLAID" are also authors of another paper analyzing OPACITY is a mere coincidence. I do not understand this complaint by the PLAID Project Editor... It is like if you write a paper about post-quantum cryptography, cite a work where people compare the hardware speed of some post-quantum scheme with that of some RSA scheme, and then someone complains that you cited a work talking about RSA which is not post-quantum...
Author of submission here. I agree with you xeno, but this is just my personal view and does not necessarily reflect the one of all the people involved. In our paper we used "moot" when intended, and "mute" when quoting from the PLAID editor's report, as it is the usual good practice. But, disclaimer: as a non-native English speaker, I cannot be sure whether "mute" could also be used in some Australian slang with the intended meaning. Thanks for pointing that out!
I'm the author of the original submission. There was a mistake in the story, as we never contacted AusCERT, but CERT Australia instead. The similarity of the names was a bit unfortunate. I apologize for this error. Could some moderator please edit the submission? Thank you!