Re: [cryptography] What project would you finance? [WAS: Potential funding for crypto-related projects]

2013-07-03 Thread Peter Todd
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:25:50PM +0200, Adam Back wrote: > I think it time to deprecate non-https (and non-forward secret > ciphersuites.) Compute power has moved on, session cacheing works, > symmetric crypto is cheap. A reasonable use for the $3k the OP is talking about would be to add node-t

Re: [cryptography] Potential funding for crypto-related projects

2013-07-03 Thread James A. Donald
On 2013-07-04 2:11 AM, Wasabee wrote: On 03/07/2013 13:31, Michael Rogers wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/07/13 13:26, danimoth wrote: Not directly related to remailer, but what about dc nets [1] ? [1] The Dining Cryptographers Problem: Unconditional Sender and

Re: [cryptography] Potential funding for crypto-related projects

2013-07-03 Thread Michael Rogers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Wasabee, I'm no expert either but I'll try to answer to the best of my understanding. I'm CCing Henry Corrigan-Gibbs, one of the Dissent designers, who will hopefully correct my mistakes. :-) On 03/07/13 17:11, Wasabee wrote: > is it really feasib

Re: [cryptography] SSL session resumption defective (Re: What project would you finance? [WAS: Potential funding for crypto-related projects])

2013-07-03 Thread Nico Williams
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Adam Back wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:48:02AM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote: >> >> On 2 July 2013 11:25, Adam Back wrote: >>> >>> does it provide forward secrecy (via k' = H(k)?). >> >> >> Resumed [SSL] sessions do not give forward secrecy. Sessions should be >>

Re: [cryptography] Potential funding for crypto-related projects

2013-07-03 Thread Wasabee
On 03/07/2013 13:31, Michael Rogers wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/07/13 13:26, danimoth wrote: Not directly related to remailer, but what about dc nets [1] ? [1] The Dining Cryptographers Problem: Unconditional Sender and Recipient Untraceability (David Chaum)

[cryptography] gnupg-1.1.7, a Python GnuPG wrapper, is released on PyPI

2013-07-03 Thread isis agora lovecruft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Announcing the release of a more secure Python wrapper for GnuPG on PyPI. About this release - -- This is the first stable release of a module (named 'gnupg' on PyPI)[0], which originated as a fork of python-gnupg.[1] Several prob

Re: [cryptography] Potential funding for crypto-related projects

2013-07-03 Thread danimoth
On 30/06/13 at 07:32pm, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: > > I'd love to see a revitalisation of remailer research, focussing on > > unlinkability (which we know many people would benefit from) rather > > than sender anonymity (which fewer people need, and which is prone to > > abuse that discourages people

Re: [cryptography] Potential funding for crypto-related projects

2013-07-03 Thread Michael Rogers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/07/13 13:26, danimoth wrote: > Not directly related to remailer, but what about dc nets [1] ? > > [1] The Dining Cryptographers Problem: > Unconditional Sender and Recipient Untraceability (David Chaum) DC nets have two major drawbacks: the

Re: [cryptography] Google's QUIC

2013-07-03 Thread ianG
On 3/07/13 12:37 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: - Forwarded message from Saku Ytti - Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:35:58 +0300 From: Saku Ytti To: na...@nanog.org Subject: Re: Google's QUIC User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On (2013-06-29 23:36 +0100), Tony Finch wrote: Reminds me of MinimaLT

Re: [cryptography] Google's QUIC

2013-07-03 Thread Eugen Leitl
- Forwarded message from Saku Ytti - Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:35:58 +0300 From: Saku Ytti To: na...@nanog.org Subject: Re: Google's QUIC User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On (2013-06-29 23:36 +0100), Tony Finch wrote: > Reminds me of MinimaLT: http://cr.yp.to/tcpip/minimalt-20130522

Re: [cryptography] SSL session resumption defective (Re: What project would you finance? [WAS: Potential funding for crypto-related projects])

2013-07-03 Thread Trevor Perrin
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > On 2 July 2013 16:07, Adam Back wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:48:02AM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote: > >> > >> On 2 July 2013 11:25, Adam Back wrote: > >>> > >>> does it provide forward secrecy (via k' = H(k)?). > >> > >> > >> Resumed [SSL]