Matthew Toseland a ?crit : > On Monday 03 March 2008 17:20, Julien Cornuwel wrote: >> Matthew Toseland a ?crit : >>> On Sunday 02 March 2008 21:40, Julien Cornuwel wrote: >>>> The client decides what to fetch with the informations given by the WoT >>>> plugin. It then asks it to the FMS plugin and it works as Martin >>>> described in another post. >>>> >>>> The only issue I see here is that we would have to create 2 SSKs per >>>> user : one for the WoT, one for FMS stuff (messages...). >>> No, each user must have entirely separate publications. Otherwise an > attacker >>> can identify that two users share the same plugin / the same node. >> I don't understand your point. Of course each identity should have its >> own SSK for publications. What's the problem if the same plugin fetches >> messages for all its clients ? > > "we would have to create 2 SSKs per user : one for the WoT, one for FMS stuff" > > I misunderstood this. But it's unnecessary anyway, you can use the same SSK > and change the document name.
I must have misunderstood something with how SSK works. Do you mean it's possible for the plugin to insert a new edition without knowledge of other files in it (FMS files) ? If so, can you explain how ? I'm interrested. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080304/0cf490ed/attachment.pgp>
