On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 11:08:23PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > Certainly. However there is the key compromize issue, and until we have
> > resolved this (by implementing revocable SSKs), we are not going to do
> > anything approaching a project freesite or anything else that requires a
> > project SSK.
> 
> I would perhaps point out that my original SSK proposal would have made 
> this much easier.  It actually defined a language which could be used to 
> specify what was entitled to insert into a subspace.  The simplest 
> version of this would be "anything that is signed by public key X" which 
> would be the same as today's SSKs.  Of course, much more sophisticated 
> criteria could be defined such as "must be signed by a public key that 
> has itself been signed by X" or "must be signed by two of public keys X, 
> Y, or Z" etc.

Unfortunately even that would be insufficient. Revocable SSKs in
practice means that when entering the site, you get something looking
like a splitfile form that checks at HTL 25 for DNFs on each of the
possible revocation keys. REVOCABLE, as opposed to multiply-signed.
Multiply-signed is impracticable.
> 
> Unfortunately, as usual, few recognised the true genius of my proposal
> at the time dismissing it as over-complicated, Vincent Van Gogh - I 
> know how you felt ;-)
> 
> Ian.
> 
> -- 
> Ian Clarke                                                ian at locut.us
> Coordinator, The Freenet Project            http://freenetproject.org/
> Founder, Locutus                                      http://locut.us/
> Personal Homepage                                 http://locut.us/ian/



-- 
Matthew Toseland
toad at amphibian.dyndns.org/amphibian at users.sourceforge.net
Full time freenet hacker.
http://freenetproject.org/
Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at
ICTHUS.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20030329/18b9b7f1/attachment.pgp>

Reply via email to