4 ms·
IPFS has a mechanism called IPNS where any /ipns/author-hash can resolve to /ipfs/hash and the ipns record is signed and can only be provided by that signer/aut
by hecturchi 6y ago
IPFS has a mechanism called IPNS where any /ipns/author-hash can resolve to /ipfs/hash and the ipns record is signed and can only be provided by that signer/author.
But this is just another way of authenticating the "author". You can also use dns (if you can trust it), or you can use signed content, or you can get the ipfs hash through a channel you trust.
The main idea though, is that IPFS content is authenticated by default because it is referenced by its own hash. The problem on obtaining a hash you can trust is just a layer above and solvable in multiple ways, as needed.
- gorgoiler 6y agoThanks. That’s informative. I would be happy with the DNS route only if I had faith in DNSSEC receiving wide adoption. As far as I’m aware every resolver on every system I use will silently fail open to non-DNSSEC DNS. It feels like that’s going to be the case for a long time yet, so maybe the rely on DNS you can trust route isn’t the best option. To be clear: I’m not worried about malicious nodes on the IPFS network corrupting data which I’ve asked for. It’s more about how to avoid being phished with ipfs:// links I find posted online whose contents claim to be something they are not. I hadn’t realised how much I relied on the safety of the padlocked domain name at the top of my browser, and on the domain name in links over which I hover. With plain IPFS every click feels like a new website?