On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, Travis Jensen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 12, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Travis Jensen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> If I wanted to encrypt all attachments, where would I go about hooking >>> in to couch? I'm guessing I would have to replace the current >>> attachment handler, right? >>> >>> I haven't started digging on this; I thought it might be useful to get >>> some feedback first. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Tj >>> >>> - >>> Travis Jensen >>> >> >> for better security I would encode them at the client level so the >> server isn't aware of the decryption key or anything. >> >> - benoît > > While I totally agree with you, it isn't really practical for > web-based applications. > > Tj > > - > Travis Jensen >
Yo can imagine to have private gateway from where mobile and web clents can access, so the server knows nothing about the encryltion and you cgan replicate it safely, the gateway will only need to point the current online storage. Something done by tahoe-lafs for ex. -benoit
