On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:11:24 PM UTC+2, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 03:17:46PM -0700, Axel wrote:
> > > I think that indirection just confuses the issue, so better to put the
> > > proof-of-freshness in the signature itself. Fortunately the OpenPGP
> > > standard
> >
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:11:22 PM UTC+2, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:21:34PM -0700, Axel wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 10:52:25 PM UTC+2, Chris Laprise wrote:
> > >
> > > Can OpenTimestamps be easily reconfigured to use a blockchain system
> > > o
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:21:34PM -0700, Axel wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 10:52:25 PM UTC+2, Chris Laprise wrote:
> >
> > Can OpenTimestamps be easily reconfigured to use a blockchain system
> > other than Bitcoin?
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> From OpenTimestamps.org: "OpenTimestamps ai
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 03:17:46PM -0700, Axel wrote:
> > I think that indirection just confuses the issue, so better to put the
> > proof-of-freshness in the signature itself. Fortunately the OpenPGP
> > standard
>
> has something called "signature notation data" that allows you to add
> > ar
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 9:54:03 PM UTC+2, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 11:15:33AM -0700, Axel wrote:
> > > Bitcoin block hashes are a chain, so it doesn't make any sense to
> include
> > > more
> > > than one, unless you're worried about reorgs.
> > >
> >
> > Agree. reo
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 10:52:25 PM UTC+2, Chris Laprise wrote:
>
> Can OpenTimestamps be easily reconfigured to use a blockchain system
> other than Bitcoin?
>
> Chris
>
>From OpenTimestamps.org: "OpenTimestamps aims to be a standard format for
blockchain timestamping. The format is flex
Can OpenTimestamps be easily reconfigured to use a blockchain system
other than Bitcoin?
Chris
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to qubes-devel+unsub
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 11:15:33AM -0700, Axel wrote:
> > Bitcoin block hashes are a chain, so it doesn't make any sense to include
> > more
> > than one, unless you're worried about reorgs.
> >
>
> Agree. reorgs are the only reason to include more than one, but 10 seems
> like overkill. Reorg
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:34:01 PM UTC+2, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 05:29:46AM -0700, Axel wrote:
> > I did not see that pull request. Note however that the pull request
> makes
> > qubes-secpack depend on the blockchain in order to prove information
> > creation *after
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:36:07 PM UTC+2, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 04:45:32PM -0500, Andrew David Wong wrote:
> > My next question was going to be whether you're aware of Peter Todd's
> > OpenTimestamps project, which Jean-Philippe mentioned. Also see:
> >
> > https://
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 04:45:32PM -0500, Andrew David Wong wrote:
> My next question was going to be whether you're aware of Peter Todd's
> OpenTimestamps project, which Jean-Philippe mentioned. Also see:
>
> https://petertodd.org/2016/opentimestamps-announcement
> https://github.com/opentimestam
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 05:29:46AM -0700, Axel wrote:
> I did not see that pull request. Note however that the pull request makes
> qubes-secpack depend on the blockchain in order to prove information
> creation *after* a certain point in time, while my suggestion was the
> opposite: make the bl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2017-06-04 16:45, Axel wrote:
> Excellent, and it's even free of charge. Following links from
> opentimestamps.org, I found https://stamp.io/ which claims to also
> be free of charge, and using both Bitcoin and Ethereum
> blockchains.
>
Looks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2017-06-04 07:29, Axel wrote:
> I did not see that pull request. Note however that the pull request
> makes qubes-secpack depend on the blockchain in order to prove
> information creation *after* a certain point in time, while my
> suggestion was
Excellent, and it's even free of charge. Following links from
opentimestamps.org, I found https://stamp.io/ which claims to also be free
of charge, and using both Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains.
On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 7:04:55 PM UTC+2, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 a
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Axel wrote:
> As Joanna has already noted, qubes-secpack is not advertised as solving all
> problems related to distribution security, but "the best we can do"
> currently.
>
> I'd like to suggest a practical improvement of qubes-secpack that I believe
> can protec
I did not see that pull request. Note however that the pull request makes
qubes-secpack depend on the blockchain in order to prove information
creation *after* a certain point in time, while my suggestion was the
opposite: make the blockchain depend on qubes-secpack in order to prove
informatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2017-06-03 10:24, Axel wrote:
> As Joanna has already noted, qubes-secpack is not advertised as
> solving all problems related to distribution security, but "the
> best we can do" currently.
>
> I'd like to suggest a practical improvement of qu
Well, blockchain could be probably also used as a proof of freshness: Just add
some Blockchain-related data to the signed message.
Regards,
Vít Šesták 'v6ak'
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and sto
As Joanna has already noted, qubes-secpack is not advertised as solving all
problems related to distribution security, but "the best we can do"
currently.
I'd like to suggest a practical improvement of qubes-secpack that I believe
can protect against a (rather limited) class of threats includin
20 matches
Mail list logo
