►
From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team, 2022-02-08
Description
RATS Architecture Design Team, 2022-02-08
A
A
Willing
to
abandon
this
issue-
and
I
just
said
well,
you
know
what
maybe
I
can
make
a
suggestion
to
him
and
that's
what
you
reviewed.
I
think,
and
you
didn't
weren't
sure
we
put
it
in
the
right
place
either
and
hank
or
someone
else
said
that
we
wasn't
sure
participants.
So
we
have
only
four
okay,
but
I
thought
we
had
five
a
moment
ago.
A
A
A
E
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
B
A
D
D
D
D
B
So
yeah,
I
think
we
say
that
claims
in
evidence
may
be
I
sensitive
as
nonsensic
claim
I.
My
argument
always
may
actually
be
discovered,
but
maybe
you
should
make
special
care
of
this
because
it
could
be
a
protocol
part
two,
not
necessarily
a
claim
thing,
but
I
don't
know
so
claim-wise.
I
think
we
are
fine,
maybe
not
non-spies.
When
you
look
at
the
general
meaning
of
month.
B
I
think
exactly
so
not
the
involved
parties.
I
think
one
example
about
like
if
the
verifier
is
talking
to
the
attester
and
doing
chatter's
response
for
the
nons
for
for
the
attack
recent
presidential
combination,
then
you
could,
as
you
know,
the
attester
could
put
its,
for
example,
ip
address
or
associated
address
into
the
nons
yes
and
encrypted,
and
yes
and
yeah
yeah,
but
it's
so
fine,
but
now
the
tester
thinks
it's
anonymous
and
cannot
be
found
out,
but
down
the
chain.
B
Now
this
come
out
ends
up
in
audit
trail
and
other
unmessed
conceptual
messages.
Someone
of
the
attacker
knows
the
symmetric
key.
Everybody
thinks
this
is
golden
just
random
stuff,
but
in
reality,
what
you
do
is
you
expose
the
typically
anonymous
identity
of
or
a
part
of
relative
fires
of
the
tester
by
unfittingly,
so
because
you
attack
via
the
nons,
the
anonymity.
B
A
However,
if
the
symmetric
key
used
for
generating
this
nonce
is
later
made
available
to
some,
I
don't
know
uber
observer
that
they
could
then
pull
the
out
of
the
pii.
Specifically
the
ip
address
out
of
the
audit
trail.
Does
that
capture
what
I
think
you
just
said:
hank
yeah,
that
would
be
a
specialization.
B
G
D
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
claims
right
because
you're
talking
about
gangsters
with
a
challenge-
okay,
which
is
not
about
the
claim
right,
so
you
could
do
oh.
This
would
be
true
if
you
put
anything
in
the
challenge:
okay
and
then
log
it
on
the
attester
or
whatever,
and
then
that
log
became
available
and
you
never
put
into
any
claim
whatsoever.
All
that
sentence
would
be
true.
A
G
E
G
B
D
And
I
I'm
not
sure
that
it's
correct
to
say
that
the
verifier
is
the
adversary.
I
mean
you're,
trying
to
submit
enough
information
to
get
the
verifier
to
do
what
you
want
the
verifier
to
do,
which
is
to
give
you
an
attestation
report
right.
So
you
got
to
reveal
whatever
the
policy
says
and
if
the
policy
says
you
have
to
reveal
things
because
it's
not
using
daa,
you
have
to
you,
know,
reveal
your
identity,
so
it
can
check
you
against
an
access
list
or
something
like
that.
Then
you
have
to
do
that.
D
It's
not
the
adversary.
It's
a
service
that
you're
trying
to
subscribe
to.
In
that
sense,
if
the
verifier
itself
doesn't
attest
to
you,
you
might
consider
an
adversary.
If
it's,
if
you
don't
consider
it
trusted,
then
sure,
of
course,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
adversary
is
the
right
word
for
a
service
you're
actually
trying
to
use
so.
E
D
D
D
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
I
decided
to
get
a
time
that
I
had
no
time
it
was
on
workshops
and
planners
and
weird
things
so
yeah.
So
this
is
I
actually,
I
eased
the
text
into
this,
and
I
did
this
very
early
in
the
architecture
overview.
So
it's
line
380
something's
very
early
on
and
I
added
very
simple
statements.
Simple
language
rules
assigned
to
entities
entities
are
often
system
components
such
as
devices,
and
then
I
spelled
it
out
literally.
This
is
like
the
meat
statement,
the
core
of
it.
B
A
D
D
B
So
so
this
is
actually
not
mandatory
additions,
but
it
is
easier
now
now
that
we
have
paid
attention
to
these
three
terms,
entity
system
component
device.
I
I
really
wanted
to
ease
the
reader
into
okay.
This
is
using
entities
still
and
now.
Oh
there
are
more
and
then
I'm
telling
about
talk
about
roles
and
on
all
the
roles.
So
I
added
a
statement
of
there
will
be
a
more
formal
definition
of
the
words
later
so.
D
D
A
A
D
B
E
B
E
B
B
So
now
you
are
already
know
that
there
are
some
roles,
but
this
is
by
the
way,
not
the
complete
list,
nor
the
actually
real
definition.
It's
just
the
overview
and
to
reinforce
that.
I
added
that
at
the
end
and
said
to
really
want
to
have
a
complete
overview
and
really
want
with
the
definitions,
go
go
to
terminology.
B
A
D
A
D
D
D
D
A
B
D
G
A
A
A
Did
that
close?
This
issue
seems
to
be
closed.
Okay,
all
right,
thomas.
So
I
tried
to
find
a
place
to
put
your
diagram
in,
and
I
thank
you
very
much
for
the
effort.
Okay,
my
first
attempt
was
at
the
end
of
section.
Let
me
pull
this
up
here
was
at
my
first
attempt:
let's
go
here,
there's
the
original
diagram
3.1.
A
D
D
A
D
B
D
D
A
D
D
So
my
question
is:
is
the:
if
is
the
horizontal
evidence
line?
The
vertical
evidence
line
is
that
one
to
one
that
a
testing
environment
on
the
left
is
supposed
to
just
be
a
pass-through
or
there's
two
different
things,
because
the
labels
are
identical,
and
so
is
that
supposed
to
be
an
evidence,
prime
or
what
that's?
What
I
just
couldn't
tell
which
which
variation
was
meant
to
this
diagram?
So.
H
D
D
D
H
Problem
I
had
originally
was
that
you
know
an
abstract
model
in
figure
I
think
two
or
whatever
it
is,
and
then
the
which
is
the
original
picture
and
then,
when
we
instantiate
in
figure
four
there's
a
suddenly
there's
an
arrow
that
comes
through
and
you
you
don't
understand.
Where
is
you
know?
Why
is
it
coming
from
and
why
is
it
allowed
to
go
into
the
other
tester?
A
My
complaint
was
that
I
wanted
the
user
the
reader
to
get
the
original
model
without
without
any
optional
blah
blah
blah
thing,
and
so
they
would
get
it
and
then
they
would
look
through
three
and
go
oh
and
then
there's
this
change
and
four
and
says:
oh
and
then
there's
this
variation
and
they
would
see
the
you
know
in
each
thing.
You
can
see
that
the
original
figure,
two
as
a
you
know,
is
already
there
is-
is
yeah,
except
as.