3 ms·
Yes, much of the article is explaining why this is reasonable for a group of 2-5 and terrible for a group of 10,000, and ways to make this more manageable in no
by dsr_ 7y ago
Yes, much of the article is explaining why this is reasonable for a group of 2-5 and terrible for a group of 10,000, and ways to make this more manageable in non-obvious ways.
- cetra3 7y agoI'm talking about a shared private/public key for everyone which gets changed when members leave or enter.
- tialaramex 7y agoWhat are you imagining a "shared private/public key" is ? Because that's not a thing. A private key is _private_, it doesn't mean anything to share one of those, if you're doing that it isn't a private key any more and you wasted your time.
- thinkloop 7y agoThey probably mean a single symmetric key shared between all. And private is not mean that only one person knows a thing. Quite the opposite. If the entire planet minus 1 person knows something, that's a form of private as well. Either way you're arguing semantics.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pricechild 7y agoA shared key would allow impersonation/spoofing within the group.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ex3ndr 7y agoWhy group of 10k need to be encrypted? chances of breach is insanely high
- Rhinobird 7y agoTo help keep proprietary company communications from getting out?