Timeline for Is this obfuscation scheme unbreakable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2016 at 21:35 | history | edited | Daniel Apon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Provided comprehensive links to ``current-patches'' (Nov 2016), for all attacks in the attack-papers that I linked
|
| Nov 10, 2016 at 13:14 | vote | accept | Chandan Singh Dalawat | ||
| Nov 8, 2016 at 16:20 | comment | added | Aurel | Fair enough :-) | |
| Nov 8, 2016 at 16:19 | comment | added | Daniel Apon | By the time you arrive at the current state-of-the-art (and a lattice problem, or other hard problem, worth stating), the answer would be very off-topic to the question.. In any case, it seemed worth answering the dangling question from two years ago. | |
| Nov 8, 2016 at 16:18 | comment | added | Daniel Apon | The question, as-asked: "Would someone care to share with us the problem about lattices that is alluded to here?" ...is difficult to answer directly. The point is that there is no hard lattice problem underlying the proposed scheme's security. | |
| Nov 8, 2016 at 16:15 | history | edited | Daniel Apon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarified that candidates still exist
|
| Nov 8, 2016 at 16:14 | comment | added | Aurel | I think the actual question was to describe what the scheme is, not the question from the title. | |
| Nov 8, 2016 at 16:09 | history | answered | Daniel Apon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |