Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 19:45 -0400, Jesse V wrote: > I am curious, what is your issue with the subdomains? Are you > referring to enumerating all subdomains, or simply being able > to confirm that a particular subdomain exists? Yes, confirmation of subdomans can become a problem in some contexts

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

On 09/27/2016 11:15 AM, Jeff Burdges wrote: > There were a couple reasons I stopped the work on integrating > GNS with Tor, which Christian asked me to do : First, I did not like > that users could confirm that a particular subdomain exists if they know > the base domain's public key. Second, I

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

I'll add a note on GNS to your wiki George, but.. On Sat, 2016-08-20 at 16:48 +0300, George Kadianakis wrote: > We really need to start serious work in this area ASAP! Maybe let's > start by > making a wiki page that lists the various potential solutions (GNS, > Namecoin, > Blockstack, OnioNS,

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

Jeremy Rand writes: > [ text/plain ] > George Kadianakis: >> Lunar writes: >> >>> [ text/plain ] >>> George Kadianakis: this is an experimental mail meant to address legitimate usability concerns with the size of onion addresses after

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

Hi! George Kadianakis a écrit : > Lunar writes: > >> [ text/plain ] >> George Kadianakis: >>> this is an experimental mail meant to address legitimate usability concerns >>> with the size of onion addresses after proposal 224 gets implemented. It's >>> meant for discussion

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

Lunar writes: > [ text/plain ] > George Kadianakis: >> this is an experimental mail meant to address legitimate usability concerns >> with the size of onion addresses after proposal 224 gets implemented. It's >> meant for discussion and it's far from a full blown proposal.

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

In order to have an effective system of blinded identities, you need to have an out of band channel to transmit 128-256 bits from the server to the client. This is essential for blinding the in-band adversary to the long term shared identity between the client and server. A naming system will move

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

I agree with this, I don't really see the point of making .onion names easy to remember. If it's a service you access often, you can bookmark it or alias it locally to something like "myserver.onion" (maybe we should make it easier for users to do just that - an alias file for .onion lookups,

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

Hi, Lunar: the size of the address Size *does* matter XD 128 bits long Oh my. IPv6. It's not a usability problem because .. .. no one outside of computer networking knows what it is, or that it exists (: a naming system [vs] random[ness] [regarding] the size of onion

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

George Kadianakis: > this is an experimental mail meant to address legitimate usability concerns > with the size of onion addresses after proposal 224 gets implemented. It's > meant for discussion and it's far from a full blown proposal. Taking a step back here, I believe the size of the address

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

whoops, didn't reply-all. On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 9:32 AM, George Kadianakis > wrote: > [...] >> >> Please let me know in what way this scheme is completely broken! > > I think it has the same

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

ban...@openmailbox.org writes: > [ text/plain ] > On 2016-07-29 17:26, George Kadianakis wrote: >> Hello people, >> >> this is an experimental mail meant to address legitimate usability >> concerns >> with the size of onion addresses after proposal 224 gets implemented. >> It's >> meant for

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

Nick Mathewson writes: > [ text/plain ] > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:26 AM, George Kadianakis > wrote: >> So basically in this scheme, HSDirs won't be able to verify the signatures of >> received descriptors. >> >> The obvious question here is, is this

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

On 2016-07-29 17:26, George Kadianakis wrote: Hello people, this is an experimental mail meant to address legitimate usability concerns with the size of onion addresses after proposal 224 gets implemented. It's meant for discussion and it's far from a full blown proposal. Anyway, after

Re: [tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:26 AM, George Kadianakis wrote: > So basically in this scheme, HSDirs won't be able to verify the signatures of > received descriptors. > > The obvious question here is, is this a problem? I'm not sure I fully understand, so here's a couple of

[tor-dev] prop224: Ditching key blinding for shorter onion addresses

Hello people, this is an experimental mail meant to address legitimate usability concerns with the size of onion addresses after proposal 224 gets implemented. It's meant for discussion and it's far from a full blown proposal. Anyway, after prop224 gets implemented, we will go from 16-character