5 ms·
Quote: """ OTR makes the same error. It takes a very interesting mathematical property, and extend it into the hard human world, as if the words carry the sa
by pnathan 15y ago
Quote:
"""
OTR makes the same error. It takes a very interesting mathematical
property, and extend it into the hard human world, as if the words carry
the same meaning. Perhaps, once upon a time, in some TV court room
drama, someone got away with lying about a document? From this, OTR
suggests that mathematics can help you deny a transcript? It can't. It
can certainly muddy the waters, it can certainly give you enough rope to
hang yourself, but what it can't do is give some veneer of "it didn't
happen." Not in court, not in the hard world of humans.
"""
I don't see any 'why' here. Maybe the context of this particular discussion would clarify it. Maybe it's well-known in places I have not read.
I think that perhaps a steganography implementation combined with OTR might provide a very interesting approach to hiding crypto communication and providing reasonable doubt on the transmission's existence.
- eru 15y agoOTR can be trivially faked. So if you have a transcript of me saying "I did not commit the crime.", you can easily manufacture "I did commit the crime." And that's how it should be.
- pnathan 15y agoSo... OTR provides a way out from the PKI trap of requiring a private key to encrypt (which in turn demonstrates access to the private key). Perhaps I'm thinking about it narrowly, but that's all OTR is said to do, yes?
- eru 15y agoIf you have a cipher that produces a stream of good pseudorandom numbers, you can use that as a one time pad. Forging is trivial. If I remember correctly: For the individual messages OTR uses Diffie-Hellman to exchange the key. That means your dialog partner knows the same key, and could have produced the message, too. But if you want the details, look up http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/Protocol-v2-3.1.0.html http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/Protocol-v2-3.1.0.html