1. Rating
 
  Technical quality
    5: Contents are completely correct. There are no errors.
  
  Originality
    3: No significantly new ideas, but good analysis of current state
  
  Editorial quality
    4: Mostly understandable, some improvements identified below

  Overall grade (overall, how do you rate this paper?)
    4: Very good
  
  Confidence (how confident are you about this review?)
    1: This is a completely new subject to me; I made educated guesses


2. Detailed comments

  2a. Technical quality
      Give a one paragraph summary of the paper.

The paper describes recents work done by Naor et al. for
authenticating messages. The paper first presents a protocol where
integrity verification is done by the user who manually authenticates
short non-secret checksums. Then the paper analyzes how difficult
attacks against the protocol are.

The strength of the paper is in the theoretical handling of the
topic. The paper is able to follow and review difficult research
results by Naor et al. and present them in a compact manner.


  2b. Originality
      How well does the paper analyze and explain the state of the art?

Novelty of ideas is a bit unclear. (Conclusions in the first draft)
stated that many possible gaps where exposed. However, it is difficult
to see what is authors and what is Naor et al.'s contribution, if the
reader isn't familiar with the original paper. If there are novel
contribution / insights in the paper, they should be emphasized more.

The scope of the paper is mainly limited to one Naor et al.'s
paper. There are not many references.

  2c. Editorial quality

The paper utilizes mathematical notations and concepts, which are
typical for cryptography. This is accurate and compact way to analyze
security. For a reader, who is not so fluent with this type of
'language', the paper is very hard.

A practical example might make the context of the paper more
clear. Particularly, the introduction could describe where the
protocol can be utilized and what a typical attack scenario would look
like (e.g. pairing/association in personal networks and MitM
attacker).  Further, discussion on the significance of results would
be interesting. E.g. the paper could describe why Naor et al. did
their paper.

Also, the introduction could explain more about the motivation
i.e. why this paper / survey was written.

The abstract states that the survey is based on a paper by Naor et
al. The relationship with this paper could be explained more in the
introduction. Reviewer's understanding was that Section 2 described
Naor et al.'s protocol model and Section 3 contained some analyzis
made by the author.


Details:

- Introduction: explaining what 'a low-bandwidth auxiliary channel' is
  might make this paper easier for reader who is not familiar with
  Vaudenay's work.

- Section 2, page 2: Check a sentence: 'Defining parameters ... and
  each C parses...'

- Section 2, Figure 1: Is the caption for figure missing or is caption
  text 12 lines long?

- Section 3, page 3, 3rd last paragraph: maybe instead of saying 'I
  consider here T denote' use 'we consider here that T denotes'

- Section 3, page 4: Check sentences: 'Now the adversary chooses i NOT
  before the receiver...'  'Then NO choise of iR and iS can make the
  polynomials...'

- Section 3, page 6: The first sentence is unclear. Do you mean "with
  the help of Claim 1, the following claim can be proven"? At the same
  sentence there is also reference to '[1]'. Which part of text the
  reference is related to?

- Conclusions: Revise the first sentence: 'In this survey was...'

- Conclusions: Could the references to the related work be given in
  the introduction or in an own section, instead of mentioning them in
  Conclusions for the first time?