Generally agreed. Criterion is this: editor must be so easy to use that a 70-yo judge whose undergrad was in French Lit. could use it. On Jun 26, 2014 5:11 PM, "Guy K. Kloss" <<a href="mailto:gk@mega.co.nz">gk@mega.co.nz</a>> wrote: > > Hi, > > last night in a discussion (in meat space) the issue of plausible > deniability came up again. As far as it stands, I guess most people are > of the opinion that even if a protocol features the capability for > plausible deniability, it probably won't hold up in court. > > We've been thinking what could be done to "better" the chances that > something like this might actually hold up. That one could believably > argue that one for example has been framed through a > doctored/manufactured transcript. > > One thought was, that it's too difficult to make anybody believe that > somebody has actually tampered with a transcript. So, an idea came up > that one actually might just need to provide a tool that's reasonably > easy to use for an average Joe to read a recorded transcript, edit it, > and save the modified version again. > > I could imagine this to work reasonably easy, if one can actually use an > existing session transcript as a "seed", which includes the initial > session key negotiation, and in the following only authenticates > messages through session secrets, rather than using the long term static > secrets (like private OTR key, or any other personal authentication > mechanism). > > Any thoughts on this? > > I think this might in scope actually make a nice student project for > some final year comp sci students. > > Guy > > > _______________________________________________ > Messaging mailing list > <a href="mailto:Messaging@moderncrypto.org">Messaging@moderncrypto.org</a> > <a href="https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging">https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging</a> >