4 ms·
> A million is a terrible, terrible idea. Well, yeah. That was a hyperbole. I didn't actually mean that you should go out and make a million copies of your key
by citruspi 11y ago
> A million is a terrible, terrible idea.
Well, yeah. That was a hyperbole. I didn't actually mean that you should go out and make a million copies of your key.
It simply meant to show that it's easier to prevent the loss of a virtual key than it is to prevent the loss of the physical key.
> The whole scheme is backwards. I don't want to authenticate myself to the server; I want to authenticate the server to me.
That's... interesting. My first thought when I read that is that the server is the one with your data and multiple users - so it needs to authenticate you to make sure that you only access your data and don't gain access to other users' data.
A server authenticating itself with you would tell you that you're actually talking to XYZ and not an imposter, but once that authentication took place you'd have access to everything on that server. Including other users' data.
How do you imagine this working?
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoAny authentication is one-to-one. The server authenticates to me, by first knowing who I am (my 'username' not a password), then using a scheme we agreed upon (our shared pair of private/public keys would be fine) to verify electronically that my machine belongs to me i.e. has the right keys. So we are both authenticated to one another. Except now, we're using sophisticated passwords and Digital Computer Logic to work them out. Instead of my fallible wetware.