Hi, Adding proof of work can only prevent an attack that depends on a huge number of useless keys. Someone else once mentioned that a single key with an illegal image ID can already cause huge problems, and deleting such a key can become the only way to be legally allowed to continue running a keyserver.
About lacking keys, well, if the pool selection mechanism causes working keyservers to be removed, that's a separate problem that needs to be solved after this one, I think. It should not be an argument for or against this suggestion, but instead needs to adapt to the current situation. Best regards, Tobias Frei (sorry, I accidentally sent this as direct reply instead of list reply before) On Tue, May 24, 2016, 17:00 Pascal Levasseur <pascal.levass...@topette.eu> wrote: > Le 24/05/2016 06:33, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) a écrit : > > Guys, > > > > Have you remembered I'm continuosly worrying about > > trolls pumping 10-20 millions of dummy keys into key servers? > > It is started... > > > > http://keys.niif.hu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x0B7F8B60E3EDFAE3 > > (Scroll over the whole page.) > > > > So we must hard think how to delete keys/signatures. > > > > Gabor > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sks-devel mailing list > > Sks-devel@nongnu.org > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel > > > > Can we add a proof of work mechanism to make adding a key to the server > more "costly" ?. > > Pascal > > _______________________________________________ > Sks-devel mailing list > Sks-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel >
_______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
