![]() Why don't we limit the amount of data deliver to each user? Let's put an ID on each message, and take only messages starting with a particular prefix. Your encryption will need to be top-notch, though, as it would be trivial to get all encrypted messages. However, you now cannot tell who is communicating with who easily 1. As they are all encrypted, the conversations are still private. ![]() Imagine a new version of Cryptocat where all the messages on the network are sent to every member who is online. How could I build a system that was more secure and more anonymous? By solving a different problem. ![]() While I'm interested in cryptography and have taken several university level classes in it, I am by no means an expert in cryptography. That's not important for many people, but if you want to "topple an oppressive government" as Dr. There was also a big gap in Cryptocat from my perspective: a lack of anonymity. Matthew Green did some analysis on Cryptocat, which wasn't very positive from a security perspective. That's not really very secure for anything worth hiding. Bruce Schneier commented on Cryptocat that it was similar to Hushmail in its security. However, it was not, at the time, very secure. Someone actually making cryptography available for the masses in an intuitive way without needing complicated key exchanges or a web of trust! Finally. Last year, sometime around June, I heard of Cryptocat and thought it was a pretty cool idea. The Origins of the Diluvian Network Mon 22 April 2013 in: programming Sean cassidy : The Origins of the Diluvian Network sean cassidy :
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |