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.

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

Eth secpm alt authentication #103

Open
wants to merge 29 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

ramsesfv
Copy link
Contributor

@ramsesfv ramsesfv commented Oct 8, 2024

Addition o0 anf alternative method for authentication.

SIWE presents some centralization issues for random node generation.
Since smart contracts cannot generate random nonces without the need of an oracle,
or can only generate pseudo-random nonces
which would be the result of combining data which could be hacked.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This sentence is difficult to follow because of its grammatical structure.

What do you mean by "would be the result of combining data which could be hacked."

Also, what does "hacked" mean in this case? Let's explain this in more professional terms.


The following approach aims at mitigating these issues.
It is similar to SIWE,
and would imply the users requesting to log into the system
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
and would imply the users requesting to log into the system
and implies the users requesting to log into the system

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what is "the system" in this context? Should be made explicit.

In order to avoid security issues like replay attacks and DDoS,
one needs to have the following aspects in mind:

1. Nonce uniqueness: this can be guaranteed tracking used nonces for each signature.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does the smart contract have to track this? What about estimated gas costs and practical implications?

1. Nonce uniqueness: this can be guaranteed tracking used nonces for each signature.
This would prevent replay attacks as it provides proofs
that a nonce was used only once by a particular address.
2. Temporal uniqueness: timestamps allow checkings to prevent the reuse of old signatures.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
2. Temporal uniqueness: timestamps allow checkings to prevent the reuse of old signatures.
2. Temporal uniqueness: timestamps allow checking to prevent the reuse of old signatures.

5. Admin role: the creator of the smart contract would have an admin role,
allowing the dynamic management of group membership.

## Pseudocode
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rather call this something like

Suggested change
## Pseudocode
## Protocol Specification

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This specification should have more text-based explanations in RFC parlance (SHOULD, MUST, etc) and not just a list of code fragments.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants