Talk:Station-to-Station protocol

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptography: Computer science C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

Intro Context[edit]

Regarding the context template, I'm not sure what to do. The initial sentence seems to give a accessible introduction to this esoteric subject. The second paragraph states several obscure but important characteristics, and the third is, I think, a pleasant history. I'm actually quite happy with the intro, but I'll admit to some bias.. does anyone have any suggestions? - ladenedge (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question concerning example for Basic STS[edit]

I think the first step might be wrong: (1) Alice -> Bob : g^x Shouldn't it be: (1) Alice -> Bob : g^x mod p ? Otherwise it would be easy for Eve figuring out the random number x. See also: here. --212.77.163.102 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The note that "all exponentials are in the group p" was meant to cover the 'mod p' on all of the equations. However, it was a bit unclear because some of the steps also included an explicit 'mod p' anyway. I've made a small edit that I hope adds sufficient clarity. ladenedge (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I got it, thank you very much. --212.77.163.106 (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order is important[edit]

The article claims that the order in which the exponentials are concatenated is important, and seems to use opposite orders between the two directions, but why? It obviously needs to be the same on both sides, but what attacks are opened up if you sign and encrypt (g^x, g^y) where there should have been (g^y, g^x)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:A4:3:7E7A:91FF:FE8D:E46F (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]