On 2008-12-16, at 05:35, Robin Cornelius wrote:
Is this going to be ALL UDP packets or just certain ones that are certainly more sensitive than others? Not applying to all still leaves a potential attack point but wastes bandwidth. This is also related to the size of the signature. If the signature is too small a brute force attack may be possible by just trying combinations of packets and getting a reply from the server, too large a signature and we have massive UDP packets so more bandwidth and lag?
If you instead encrypt the UDP packets you won't need to add a signature to the packet itself, you can just encrypt the packet with a key passed through HTTPS CAPS at login. The computational overhead should be similar for encryption or signing at equivalent levels of security, and encryption would add privacy.
Since you have a secure channel via HTTPS, you don't need to use a separate key exchange protocol, and you don't need the computational overhead of private keys.
In fact just periodically exchanging a UUID over HTTPS to use in some fast short-period encryption technique would probably be enough. Don't serialize the packets, just keep updating the key.
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
