@soatok I'm confused what are the consequences of first vulnerability. It seems to allow an attacker who can control the public key the victim will believe their counterparty has to cause the victim to establish session secrets ~controlled[1] by the attacker. If the attacker is in such a position, they are essentially able to impersonate the victim's counterparty anyway. How does being able to force session secrets to the fixed value give them more? (Or am I misunderstanding something more basic?) [1] not arbitrarily controlled, but can force them to some fixed ones, so the attacker is more powerful that one that simple knows the session secrets. E: better grammar