3 ms·

>Anyone can forge messages after a conversation is complete to make them look like they came from you. "I didn't send those messages your honour. Someone forge

>Anyone can forge messages after a conversation is complete to make them look like they came from you. "I didn't send those messages your honour. Someone forged them. I am a victim of a conspiracy!" "Do you have any evidence that this actually happened?" "No." "...moving right along..." It will be fun if someone from this actually tries a cryptogeek argument in real life...

hcs 6y ago
Ross Ulbricht tried essentially that defense.
- SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
  Exactly. The tricky part of plausible deniability is that it needs to actually be plausible. People very often screw this part up. EG they'll make a TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt hidden volume, but then won't modify the outer volume with the same access patterns to hide their usage of the hidden volume.
woah 6y ago
Doesn't this put the burden of proof on the accused?
- upofadown 6y ago
  People have been claiming they have been framed since forever. If claiming you were framed with zero proof actually helped in any way then every one would do it and much time would be wasted. In the case of a crypto forgeablity argument there will never be any proof. It will always be a false claim. It is a silly idea.
  - kazinator 6y ago
    > People have been claiming they have been framed since forever. Yes they have, but they have been doing so in the face of circumstantial evidence: DNA, fingerprints, blood, whatever. Or eyewitness evidence: someone saw you go in the building at such and such time (perhaps there is a surveillence video). If someone has nothing of the sort on you and their entire claim is that you wrote some digital message, I'd think the onus would be on them to prove their extraordinary claim somehow.
    - upofadown 6y ago
      Just like with any other evidence. My point is that the possibility of forgery makes no difference at all to that.
      - kazinator 6y ago
        A piece of digital text isn't a forgery; there is no concept of authenticity in it in the first place to serve as a backdrop legitimizing the use of the word "forgery". It's not like planting someone's hair, or imitating their signature. You need absolutely nothing from the victim, and to expend no effort.
        upofadown 6y ago
        The concept seems to have come from the original off the record (OTR) messaging proposal. The concern was that, say, a PGP signature could create a situation where there was objective proof that someone had created a particular message. By making forgery possible the theory was that someone could disclaim the message. I have been writing some PGP fandom articles lately which is why I am up on the subject. The relevant articles: * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:off_the_record https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:off_the_record * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:repudiability https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:repudiability So I am not disagreeing with what you said, it supports my contention that forgability is a silly cryptographic feature if there is no proof in the first place.

hcs 6y ago

Ross Ulbricht tried essentially that defense.

SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
Exactly. The tricky part of plausible deniability is that it needs to actually be plausible. People very often screw this part up. EG they'll make a TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt hidden volume, but then won't modify the outer volume with the same access patterns to hide their usage of the hidden volume.

woah 6y ago

Doesn't this put the burden of proof on the accused?

upofadown 6y ago
People have been claiming they have been framed since forever. If claiming you were framed with zero proof actually helped in any way then every one would do it and much time would be wasted. In the case of a crypto forgeablity argument there will never be any proof. It will always be a false claim. It is a silly idea.
- kazinator 6y ago
  > People have been claiming they have been framed since forever. Yes they have, but they have been doing so in the face of circumstantial evidence: DNA, fingerprints, blood, whatever. Or eyewitness evidence: someone saw you go in the building at such and such time (perhaps there is a surveillence video). If someone has nothing of the sort on you and their entire claim is that you wrote some digital message, I'd think the onus would be on them to prove their extraordinary claim somehow.
  - upofadown 6y ago
    Just like with any other evidence. My point is that the possibility of forgery makes no difference at all to that.
    - kazinator 6y ago
      A piece of digital text isn't a forgery; there is no concept of authenticity in it in the first place to serve as a backdrop legitimizing the use of the word "forgery". It's not like planting someone's hair, or imitating their signature. You need absolutely nothing from the victim, and to expend no effort.
      - upofadown 6y ago
        The concept seems to have come from the original off the record (OTR) messaging proposal. The concern was that, say, a PGP signature could create a situation where there was objective proof that someone had created a particular message. By making forgery possible the theory was that someone could disclaim the message. I have been writing some PGP fandom articles lately which is why I am up on the subject. The relevant articles: * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:off_the_record https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:off_the_record * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:repudiability https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:repudiability So I am not disagreeing with what you said, it supports my contention that forgability is a silly cryptographic feature if there is no proof in the first place.