-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 David Leon Gil wrote: > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:01 PM, D. J. Bernstein <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The traditional view is that maximum-security decentralized >> systems can't be usable, so we have to compromise on security, >> typically by trusting centralized third parties. > > I very much doubt most people on this list believe that. >
DJB's stated traditional view is IMHO reasonable, and reinforced by the often-abysmal UI/UX associated with these systems. (Fortunately,) I doubt that the set of people on this list is representative of the general population. >> The reason I'm writing now is that I think most people here >> haven't yet heard of the GNU Name System, a _usable_ >> maximum-security decentralized naming system: >> >> https://gnunet.org/sites/default/files/paper_cans2014_camera_ready.pdf > >> >> >> >> > Some problems with this paper (which I saw an earlier version of as > well, I think): > > - Doesn't describe how the DHT will work. The details are critical > to security and scalability. They use R5N [0], see reference 18 in that paper. > > - Doesn't, as best I can tell, provide any way to deal with spam in > the global namespace. (I.e., spammers, phishers, et hoc genus omnes > will rapidly register every memorable/short/confusable name.)[*] Bhere is no global namespace. Rather, the global namespace (*.gnu) is _always_ owned by the local user. GNS stores domain name zones in the DHT, but those zones are indexed by the public key of the zone, not by its desired name. Alice adds Bob's GNS zone to her global namespace as *.bob.gnu or *.nemesis.gnu at her choice. Bob can suggest a name within his zone file, as could spammers. But there is no requirement that those suggestions be unique, and Alice will only fetch the zones of public keys she has an interest in. The spam issue therefore reduces to the common issue of DHT pollution. > > I'll note that the query privacy section (section 4) seems to give > a decent enough design. But that's really the only part of the > paper that is fleshed out enough to bother with. I would, however, > be very interested to learn more details about the design. I have been examining GNS as a possible replacement for the current petname-only naming system in I2P. Anyone curious can read the discussion thread [1], or the comparison matrix [2], for insight into applying GNS to an existing system. str4d [0] https://gnunet.org/sites/default/files/nss2011.pdf [1] http://zzz.i2p/topics/1545 (inside I2P) [2] https://trac.i2p2.de/wiki/GNS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUMhaqAAoJEIA97kkaNHPnBpkP/09R/PadQbH+WGYsflHWMtbt yDcRZWIMv/tGmzjzEP4bSeoU1/FlJABBC9hR0tJ6j/kQ1EXMnypNEIsANhgQ4tbo eE+eoAs56GE6pLmObYQNWq6x2kUOUf8OMR5PAJqphVu0x44ZgbxhJ335/Q8MaoZp acyLkeLcWFxa9LDYD/ll5iXu5Wylt0sdQf8oVfI6nvedAx04tLqHSk0oKj84fu/B x3jCwltdFV4BQCHLwKS0ekPuycOdKehaCoxOq+M4LxPF0L2/E7YdU8gj2oTdv5Ls eW7N5dYYsTUZ6ddPjxkkPtrQldT2kRVXOj/ylmMpVfdLA/4TqkSh/hUkXqseYGlp +uK5dCkr+vQ4Rg1sRz/NB6d+RkwtCnKYegH53WBGRyKwnm+SVFOzM3I62sOuVdMN UVJ9AMf2Q0XPorjMfgEy1hCJHORI7gy/AShvAqnbg7ZO73o+xxP73hCJ5Gd30zde HVVROewe6+9znDV676aBfSZZg7TB2IRK0Olkaaczs2LEOKPBl0+RgiwsTJA/kOOB 8Q6uZGLMf3uA6FwmE6d6WiWJSfs6dOB3Z8ZjqFjOnDZan0fTBiZ5bto7nrtwveBZ E4YpwlaA6oy0UqdH7VNEz1GnsJ1HseoJhJyqdgWiesExuDfQVK5c1y3hol82ehkr bB9AIr8q0QRmAtDGDDdk =vYxW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
