This is Hacker News, where people who know nothing about a topic come to tell each other about their expertise. You believe no-one would make this type of mistake, I know they did and I have just provided you a link to the paper at the time. Alas some people will believe you, and they will assume that they too are infallible and the rest is inevitable.
Thank you for reminding me to read the original report again. However, I still don't see any evidence to support your claim that the designers assumed TLS connections to be symmetric in their establishment.
Maybe I'm reading the report differently from you, or maybe I'm misreading it or missing sth — though I did honestly try to read it from your perspective — but I just don't see anything in the report where session establishment or resumption ignores the role of a participant. A client is still a client that cannot receive new connections and a server is still a server that cannot initiate connections.
The report does support my reading of the issue though:
1. That Selfie would not be possible if a server checked the intended recipient of any handshake message it received; and
2. That Selfie would not be possible if the assumption that a PSK is a secret known only to one client and one server were not violated. How it is violated — whether by reusing the client and server host nodes and deploying the opposite roles on each (your symmetric case), or by setting up two extra, completely unrelated and independent host nodes (no symmetry here) — does not matter. They are both violations of secrecy of PSK and thus vulnerable to Selfie either way.
----
> You believe no-one would make this type of mistake
I did not "believe no-one would". I "strongly doubted" (which is subtly, but importantly enough, different from belief) whether a proof writer who's intimately familiar with TLS handshake (again, not "no-one") "would".
> Alas some people will believe you, and they will assume that they too are infallible and the rest is inevitable.
I ... don't see where this is going. Or why.
> What did Dorothy Parker say about Horticulture ?
Okay, you've definitely lost me.
----
Look, I'm not arguing that mathematical proofs are infallible to modeling inaccuracies, or that they should be trusted blindly. Or that people can be perfect if they have enough expertise. Absolutely not. I only disagreed on some nuances of the specific example you provided.
But you may not be interested in that. Especially given how you generalised my words above (and thus erased them of all nuance), I'm going to read the signs I see, write this whole thing off as basically an exercise in pedantry, and end this here.
That's nice, but I'm reporting historical fact. https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/347
This is Hacker News, where people who know nothing about a topic come to tell each other about their expertise. You believe no-one would make this type of mistake, I know they did and I have just provided you a link to the paper at the time. Alas some people will believe you, and they will assume that they too are infallible and the rest is inevitable.
What did Dorothy Parker say about Horticulture ?