[messaging] plausible deniability and transcript editors

[David Leon Gil]

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" <gk at mega.co.nz> 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
> Messaging at moderncrypto.org
> https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/messaging/attachments/20140628/ce3d6a62/attachment.html>