4 ms·
> And since both parts are under control of the same actor, it's not very different from, well, not doing it. Both parts are not in control of the same entity.
by rasengan 6y ago
> And since both parts are under control of the same actor, it's not very different from, well, not doing it.
Both parts are not in control of the same entity.
That said, thanks for the input and comments!
Edit: If you have any more input on how it can be approved, I would love to hear it! :-) My email is in my profile!
- lucb1e 6y ago> Both parts are not in control of the same entity. How does that work? Do you or a subcontractor of yours not host the javascript responsible for the encryption? Edit: okay so this piqued my interest and the site has this to say: "Public IP is stripped away by the Private.sh proxy" (so you run the proxy) and "Search Provider decrypts the query". So the point is that Privacysh != Search Provider I guess? That begs the question whether one is a subcontractor or side project of the other, or hosted in the same physical space, or something else that make this effectively the same as not proxying it. Also because you need to coordinate on what JS is being delivered to some extent: if Privacysh doesn't use the right pubkey, the SP can't decrypt it. It feels a bit like Telegram who says "all our chats are encrypted, really! We can't read your messages!" but is still somehow able to deliver the plaintext messages to your client at a very fast rate. The trick being that "the key is stored in another datacenter as the message" but of course Telegram owns both and that's how they combine it for intercepting, ahem, for delivering messages to your phone. This isn't the same, but without more background info it seems similar. Then again, it can't be worse than the status quo, so still good that you're working on this one way or another!
- rasengan 6y ago> Then again, it can't be worse than the status quo, so still good that you're working on this one way or another! Thank you. To clarify, private.sh != search provider (gigablast). Thus, it would take collusion between both to couple the identity of the searcher to the search query. private.sh does not have access to the private key associated with the public key that's used to encrypt the search query!
- lucb1e 6y agoThanks for clarifying, that's a setup I definitely haven't seen before. Interesting!
- bawolff 6y ago> Both parts are not in control of the same entity. That seems doubtful. Which party is in control of the end where decryption takes place if not private.sh?