On Tuesday 04 March 2008 17:31, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > Matthew Toseland a ?crit : > > On Monday 03 March 2008 17:20, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > >> Matthew Toseland a ?crit : > >>> On Sunday 02 March 2008 21:40, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > >>>> The client decides what to fetch with the informations given by the WoT > >>>> plugin. It then asks it to the FMS plugin and it works as Martin > >>>> described in another post. > >>>> > >>>> The only issue I see here is that we would have to create 2 SSKs per > >>>> user : one for the WoT, one for FMS stuff (messages...). > >>> No, each user must have entirely separate publications. Otherwise an > > attacker > >>> can identify that two users share the same plugin / the same node. > >> I don't understand your point. Of course each identity should have its > >> own SSK for publications. What's the problem if the same plugin fetches > >> messages for all its clients ? > > > > "we would have to create 2 SSKs per user : one for the WoT, one for FMS stuff" > > > > I misunderstood this. But it's unnecessary anyway, you can use the same SSK > > and change the document name. > > I must have misunderstood something with how SSK works. Do you mean it's > possible for the plugin to insert a new edition without knowledge of > other files in it (FMS files) ? If so, can you explain how ? I'm > interrested.
I mean you could use the same SSK pubkey. But maybe you could share more than that, we really need to minimise polling here.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080304/2ef28988/attachment.pgp>
