On 7/5/20 11:44 AM, Cy wrote: > How high-latency can a gnunet-conversation be? It seems once you do the > initial ECDH handshake to get a shared secret, you could keep that > secret around pretty much forever. I was thinking of a UI where > conversations were like email exchanges, where you could compose it at > your leisure, and reply whenever. Is that feasible? > > I know in theory if we both have a shared secret, then if I publish a > gnunet-fs://ksk record with that secret as the keyword, then you're the > only one who can find it, the only one who can decrypt it, and we might > not even have to be online at the same time because intermediate nodes > can cache it. But I don't think gnunet-conversation uses ksk records? It > just sends encrypted data through temporary tunnels that require low > latency and simultaneous presence online, right? > > If so, would it be good to augment gnunet-conversation to use KSK > records as a backup to synchronize unsent messages, when tunnel > establishment fails? Or would it be better to have a different "private > message" service entirely, that only used gnunet-fs? Can a > diffie-hellman key exchange be performed over gnunet-fs without some > crippling security failure?
Here's a draft of a high-latentcy chat protocol using gnunet-fs: https://web.archive.org/web/20080302143609/http://www.gnunet.org/drupal/node/306
