Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

9
  • 2
    I don't think this is logically possible. The only way that a machine can respond differently to the same message a second time, is if its internal state changes. Commented Mar 16, 2015 at 14:44
  • 2
    This is an obvious case of X/Y trouble. Why do you assume you need to come with a "stateless" solution? Commented Mar 16, 2015 at 14:59
  • 3
    Take a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack for possible solutions. Commented Mar 16, 2015 at 15:00
  • 4
    Let's give OP the benefit of the doubt and parse "more stateless" as "needing far less state". There are certainly defenses against replay attacks that only need a tiny number of bits per connection (e.g. TLS apparently includes a MAC built from a sequence number among other things). The real question is why you're implementing custom crypto. What is the nature of this communication and why can't you use a ready-made, peer-reviewed protocol for it? Commented Mar 16, 2015 at 15:02
  • @GregRos Yes, you are correct, that was so obvious Commented Mar 16, 2015 at 15:02