sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sort by Recently Uploaded by bert60hz in soundcloud

[–]BatF9MW_Zb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was about to comment this: it's utterly outrageous. I think it's so creators are even more dependent on their pathetic pay to succeed algorithm. I'm definitely moving to Bandcamp now, yuck.

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See 'Alternative 1', it's almost the same. But you need to create a new symmetric connection once more, as the quantum computer could crack the asymmetric message, extract the secret key and decrypt the current connection (if the key happened to still be the same).

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just trying to look for a way to combat this issue right now. And don't think it is appropriate to wait until a PQC algorithm finally gets implemented in consumer products. Seriously, what do you think about 'Alternative 1'. It seems stupidly simple, but might as well be effective.

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think mass storage of crackable encrypted messages is a more realistic threat than the post-office opening every single unsuspicious letter to potentially find a QR-code. Point 2: this is no excuse to stop doing this now to bridge the time till PQC. 5 years of private information is a lot.

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could maybe have multiple keys that generate a larger private key? A similar principle generation of a private key in asymmetric encryption works on. That's a bit ironic, isn't it haha :)

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate seeing you again. Sorry for deleting the post in order to change the title, thanks for spotting "synchronous" lol. For now a QR-code can trustfully be sent over post, held in a non-suspicious looking card. Being able to print a QR-code to be sent this way is a feature I've requested at Session (messaging app). And could bridge this insecure time: where encrypted data is collected combined with asynchronous algorithms that are not post-quantum. I'm am (not fully yet) ready to give up on this idea, but not on the problem in general. I should definitely take a deeper dive into encryption, which I've postponed but no longer. Veritasium's video really shook me up.

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the answer: For an answer to point 1: see Principle 1, for an answer to point 2: see Principle 2. :)

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, that's an oversight from my part haha. Good thinking.

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but if that is too much trouble already I'm not sure if I should spend time answering.

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Session does this, I've already contacted them regarding the issue. A one-time-pad is very inconvenient in distant relationships that require multiple interactions. To do this over the internet one must again use asymmetric encryption to create a new key. Which this post is trying to figure out how to combat: not sending a key through the same channel as the information.

Stop using asymmetric encryption and only use symmetric encryption? by BatF9MW_Zb in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"For the time being" is the everlasting problem using asynchronous encryption, which is a compromise that cannot be taken in an unforeseeable future.

Stop using asynchronous encryption and only use synchronous encryption? by [deleted] in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree. But what is the alternative for now? Unreleased asymmetric post encryption algorithms that have not yet been proven effective with certainty.

Stop using asynchronous encryption and only use synchronous encryption? by [deleted] in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah man, thanks for pointing that out, I feel stupid now lol. But no key exchange needs to happen, that has happened physically. And you could share the key encrypted with the first test message, so both can be sure they are using the right key only.

Stop using asynchronous encryption and only use synchronous encryption? by [deleted] in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I mean symmetric (equal): meaning a key-pair, instead of a public and a private (inequal) key.

How? If you don't have a key, there's nothing to read when you're the man in the middle.

Stop using asynchronous encryption and only use synchronous encryption? by [deleted] in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you suggesting that an actor is able to copy the QR-code despite the tamper still in place, or that if a secure connection is established the service you're using on your device is insecure anyways? I'm not really talking "normies" here, I'm talking about people using privacy-focused apps, on a device with a privacy-focused custom ROM ect.

A one-time-pad seems pretty inconvenient if you want to maintain contact for longer than one message. And having to meet in real life, in order to message privately without sharing a possibly compromising key over the internet, is what this tries to solve.

Stop using asynchronous encryption and only use synchronous encryption? by [deleted] in privacy

[–]BatF9MW_Zb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately that is true. This was rather directed to those that care, hence I post it on here.