Thanks Connelly for the writeup and the discussion, > The following is a discussion of tunnel cryptography plans for > I2P 0.5. There are two options; one will be chosen.
A few key changes were missed in this draft, and I've incorporated all of the suggestions from yesterday into [1]. The explanation of the overall rationale for the two different strategies is largely correct. This is still a work in progress, and will be improved as we get both more feedback and clarify some issues. [1]http://dev.i2p.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/i2p/router/doc/tunnel-alt.html?rev=HEAD An implementation of the crypto for first strategy [2] has been created [3], but as there are some weaknesses in inbound tunnels when dealing with colluding attackers who also control the gateway, the second strategy seems more appealing. Next up I'd like to get that implemented into code so that any further issues can be fleshed out, as well as to make concrete what it is that is being specified. [2]http://dev.i2p.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/i2p/router/doc/tunnel.html?rev=HEAD [3]http://dev.i2p.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/i2p/router/java/src/net/i2p/router/tunnel/ Of course, none of those html docs are a finished spec for I2P overall as they assume familiarity with the other non-tunnel-related parts of I2P and do not include the relevent references to where we snagged our ideas ;) This is just a state-of-the-design view into the 0.5 tunnel revamp. Anyway, thanks again for the updates Connelly, and if anyone is looking for the details currently planned for, please see [1]. Suggestions/comments/criticisms always welcome, or if you want to get involved, please get in touch! We're in #i2p on irc.freenode.net and on irc.duck.i2p pretty much all the time. =jr --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
