Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [decentralization] LIPP: a Lossy Inefficient Paranoid Protocol

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Mohr
    I am reminded of the techniques: The Dining Cryptographers Problem: Unconditional Sender and Recipient Untraceability David Chaum J. Cryptology (1988)
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I am reminded of the techniques:

      The Dining Cryptographers Problem: Unconditional Sender and Recipient Untraceability
      David Chaum
      J. Cryptology (1988)
      http://komarios.net/crypt/diningcr.htm
      (Also http://komarios.net/crypt/dc.htm & http://komarios.net/crypt/dc-demo.htm)

      Chaffing and Winnowing: Confidentiality without Encryption
      Ronald L. Rivest
      March 18, 1998 (rev. April 24, 1998)
      http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/chaffing.txt

      - Gojomo
    • Lucas Gonze
      ... Canonical stuff. After a few false starts at responses, I realized that I have little to add, except perhaps a hope that there are approaches to these
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > I am reminded of the techniques:

        Canonical stuff. After a few false starts at responses, I realized that I have
        little to add, except perhaps a hope that there are approaches to these
        algorithms that are simple enough to implement in a few lines of Javascript, so
        that the overhead and trackability of real programs is not such a problem. For
        example:

        There are web sites that allow user data to be posted and queried via a GET.
        There is some way for javascript to pick up the response from a GET and parse
        it. There are web pages with the Javascript embedded. There are ways to for a
        user to find such web pages with minimal risk. The Javascript makes the round
        of such sites. At each one it looks for messages directed towards the user, for
        example that contain a code word or correct MAC, optionally drops off messages
        intended for the other party, and optionally drops off chaff messages.

        The sites can either be dedicated to this use or be commandeered into it, e.g.
        eGroups.

        A usecase for this is casual dissidents, people who aren't committed enough to
        their cause to install heavy equipment like Freenet but who still need
        protection. For example, non-activists doing low intensity griping about a
        repressive government.

        - Lucas
      • marc@precipice.org
        ... Sounds like Usenet. Marc Hedlund e: marc
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 8, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In decentralization@y..., "Lucas Gonze" <lucas@w...> wrote:
          > The spy and controller simply put their messages in
          > random public places within a limited range. The
          > range might be a neighborhood; five or six city blocks
          > for example. When the controller has the message
          > "need info on bombs" he writes it on a flyer and
          > staples it to a bulletin board within those five or
          > six blocks. If the spy happens to see the message
          > he can create a flyer that says "they are manufactured
          > in Omaha" and, also, post it anywhere in the range.

          Sounds like Usenet.

          <http://www.feedmag.com/templates/printer.php3?a_id=1624>
          <http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1c032201.html>

          Marc Hedlund
          e: marc at precipice dot org
        • Lucas Gonze
          ... ...or, come to think of it, Spam. Indiscriminate broadcasting is the key.
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 8, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            > Sounds like Usenet.
            >
            > <http://www.feedmag.com/templates/printer.php3?a_id=1624>

            ...or, come to think of it, Spam. Indiscriminate broadcasting is the key.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.