puchka: hi

lambdart: hi :)

puchka: ca va?

puchka: just kidding :)

UkoeHB: To be counter-pedantic, almost all the published research on ring signature de-anonymization through statistical means uses the term "attack". Maybe they misuse it according to a stricter definition of "attack", but my use of the term is consistent with the literature in this area.

When I first starting looking into this issue, I searched for standardization of the definition of the term "attack" in computer science, and I couldn't find agreement. The waters are already muddy.

Unfortunately "computer science" isn't a science. most academics would tell you that

Rucknium[m]: it's mostly just misleading, because the 'attacker' doesn't actually interact with the system in any way except to read data

As far as I can tell, "attack" is widely used in that circumstance. For example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciphertext-only_attack

Yes, it is passive rather than active. So I can clarify in the future by using the term "passive statistical attack".

yeah I suppose that's as accurate as you can get

+1