[messaging] Test Data for the Usability Study

Tom Ritter tom at ritter.vg
Sun Jun 15 10:41:18 PDT 2014

On 15 June 2014 13:26, Michael Rogers <michael at briarproject.org> wrote:
> In general I'm not sure that modifying the representation, as opposed
> to the fingerprint being represented, is a good way to model the
> attacker. I thought we were trying to model an attacker who can
> generate 2^80 fingerprints, then pick the one that's closest to the
> victim's fingerprint, for some definition of "closest". In the first
> stage of the study, we define "closest" as "sharing the most bits". *
> If that's what we're trying to model, perhaps we should rewrite the
> encoders to separate fingerprint generation (random or pseudo-random)
> from encoding (deterministic). We could then generate pairs of
> fingerprints (victim and attacker) that differ in the expected number
> of bits, and run them through the encoders.
> I'm happy to do this for the poem generator, but I may not be the best
> person to do it for the other encoders.

I agree, and that would be great!

English word should be relatively easy to do in that model.  I'll
generate a 130 bit fingerprint, and let each successive 10 bits
determine the next word.  Then I'd flip 40 of the bits at random and
repeat the encoding.

English pseudowords would be slightly more difficult.  Trevor would be
the best person to change that code, but if he doesn't have time I
will investigate.


More information about the Messaging mailing list