3 ms·

I have a solution to this in https://github.com/anacrolix/btlink https://github.com/anacrolix/btlink. Addressing your specific points: > * No DNS It extends D

I have a solution to this in https://github.com/anacrolix/btlink https://github.com/anacrolix/btlink. Addressing your specific points: > * No DNS It extends DNS by mapping naming over DHT, and content addressed data to a corner of the existing DNS system (.btlink is the working example given). > * No identity manager Yep > * No shared server. A server is fine so long as you are the only client that can access it as a server or other clients are currently known and prior authenticated (a peer). It allows for a level of shared server to suit the user, to ease use. You can run your own "server" (the eventual default), or use a public or shared one to get started. Server here refers to a process that extends DNS and serves resources without having to modify existing software. > * No root certificate or certificate authority or CRL. It makes no attempt to modify the existing system in use on the internet. A certificate is required to serve .btlink traffic over https. > * No blockchain Yep > * No shared database or other shared services Yep (I assume a DHT doesn't count here).

austin-cheney 3y ago
My goal is to accomplish Zero Trust Conformance[1]. You cannot do that using web technologies in their current form unless you internalize the centralized aspects of those technologies or validate them under contract. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/zero-trust/zero-trust-overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/zero-trust/zero-t... That is the Microsoft definition. The US Army is forming its own definition because aside from reliance upon cloud vendors as service providers the military owns its own infrastructure and services (OSI layers 1-7). Nobody else can claim that, so the US Army can take Zero Trust to a different level than others are afforded. My goal is to conform to the more demanding military definition for OSI layers 5, 6, and 7. The business case is two-fold: privacy as a mandate and mitigating disruption via logic redundancy. I have an application that is 98% of the way there. I only accomplished this by either internalizing some technologies and abandoning those I could not. As for certificates that is something you can internalize. You can create your own self-signed certificate and corresponding certificate chain necessary to make your OS and browser happy. If you don't need certificates for their actual purpose, trust authority, then all you need them for is facilitating TLS traffic. I am exchanging trust for authentication via identity and key exchange.
- anacrolix 3y ago
  Ok, well the certificate model I described for btlink I would considered "internalized" under your definitions.

austin-cheney 3y ago

My goal is to accomplish Zero Trust Conformance[1]. You cannot do that using web technologies in their current form unless you internalize the centralized aspects of those technologies or validate them under contract. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/zero-trust/zero-trust-overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/zero-trust/zero-t... That is the Microsoft definition. The US Army is forming its own definition because aside from reliance upon cloud vendors as service providers the military owns its own infrastructure and services (OSI layers 1-7). Nobody else can claim that, so the US Army can take Zero Trust to a different level than others are afforded. My goal is to conform to the more demanding military definition for OSI layers 5, 6, and 7. The business case is two-fold: privacy as a mandate and mitigating disruption via logic redundancy. I have an application that is 98% of the way there. I only accomplished this by either internalizing some technologies and abandoning those I could not. As for certificates that is something you can internalize. You can create your own self-signed certificate and corresponding certificate chain necessary to make your OS and browser happy. If you don't need certificates for their actual purpose, trust authority, then all you need them for is facilitating TLS traffic. I am exchanging trust for authentication via identity and key exchange.

anacrolix 3y ago
Ok, well the certificate model I described for btlink I would considered "internalized" under your definitions.