On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 21:22 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > Rather than advertising 2 independant items, these could be merged in a > "Deniable authentication" item which would contain both sublists.
One reason why I think "deniability" is important as a separate feature is that it is differentiating in the face of other, similar kinds of programs. Most encryption systems are not deniable; in fact, many systems are not deniable /by design/. This message, for example, is PGP signed and is not deniable at all. Anyone who gets a copy of the message can verify that I, or someone with control over my private key, composed and sent this message. The Pidgin-Encryption plugin similarly doesn't have deniability built into its threat model at all. In that context, I think it might be deserving of being listed as its own feature. >By the way, I do not understand what "Anyone can forge messages after a >conversation to make them look like they came from you." means. It's part of the deniability feature. While it's very difficult for an attacker to forge a signature while the conversation is going on, the ephemeral key used for signatures is publicly revealed after the conversation is over. That means that you could forge any messages, and theoretically, provide some defense against someone who /did/ manage to compromise the communication being able to prove that you said what you said. -- Harlan Lieberman-Berg ~hlieberman
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
