From c83ba5fb9d34de75fdc75d1ac72f0527159bc092 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: rajeshkalaria80 Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:17:32 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] typo correction --- janus/repudiation.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/janus/repudiation.md b/janus/repudiation.md index dc21dad..98cc26f 100644 --- a/janus/repudiation.md +++ b/janus/repudiation.md @@ -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 @@ -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