On Thursday 30 October 2003 03:20 pm, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > On Thursday 30 October 2003 01:46 pm, Toad wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:15:23PM -0600, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > > > Why not? For CHK: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED],<hash>,<decrypt key> > > > where <Decrypt key> decrypts > > > and H(hash) routes > > > and H(hash+XXX) verifies. > > > All you have to send is hash and XXX. > > > For SSK: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED],<key>,<name> > > > where <key> decrypts > > > and H(H(key+name)) routes > > > and H(H(key+name)+XXX) verifies. > > > All you have to send is H(key+name) and XXX. > > > > > > Why wouldn't this work? > > > > Because if XXX is common, the attacker only needs to compute it once.
Yeah, you right I'm an idiot. :-) But if you route based on the h(hash+xxx) then you can't keep upping XXX. :-( and because we are limited to a fixed table size they only need to generate that many keys. :-( So in the end anyone with access to a hundred or so PCs could censor any content in Freenet within a couple of weeks :-( So anyone have any other idea? _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
