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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

typo correction #15

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

typo correction #15

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions janus/repudiation.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Repudiable sending may sound mysterious, but it's actually quite simple.
secret (e.g., it's encrypted by a negotiated symmetric
encryption key), then Carol knows the sender must be Alice. However,
she can't prove it to anyone, because Alice's immediate counter-response
could be, "Carol could have encrypted this himself. She knows the key, too."
could be, "Carol could have encrypted this herself. She knows the key, too."
Notice that this only works in a pairwise channel.

Non-repudiable messages are typically accomplished with digital
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ There are certainly cases where non-repudiation is appropriate. If

Janus supports both modes of communication. However, properly modeled
interactions tend to favor repudiable messages; non-repudiation must be
a deliberate choice. For this reason, Jason assumes repudiable until
a deliberate choice. For this reason, Janus assumes repudiable until
an explicit signature is required (in which case the `sign()` crypto
primitive is invoked. This matches the physical world, where most
communication is casual and does not carry the weight of legal
Expand Down