-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>
> This is like the content encryption that has been on the table the whole time
> (although we never discussed the first hash, why not just use the unhashed
> string as the key?)
You need to permute the key out to a certain fixed number of bits, the
size of your block cipher's key. You could also salt it, I suppose.
> You have to observe that this is not secure though, it is as susceptible to
> dictionary attacks as your resident PHBs Microsoft Outlook account. And the
> better that KHKs actually work, the easier it will be to make a dictionary
> attack against it.
True enough, but this sort of indirection isn't so much for strong
encryption, but to make proving the existance of illicit data on a Node
operators machine impossible. Sort of a least-resistance encryption done
on all data. The user would still probably want to encrypt sensitive data
with his own system.
> But this doesn't really matter since this is more obfuscation then crypto. You
> cannot be encrypted to perform "hacking" attacks on any data you pass...
Yes, I agree.
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE4/N/9pXyM95IyRhURAoqzAJ9Oss0LAwF0S6MnH+aNJlBR8LSZlgCbBTZo
Jy6ggdHpe8HXrNrArmyQp24=
=0UC+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
