[messaging] plausible deniability and transcript editors
David Leon Gil
coruus at gmail.com
Sat Jun 28 11:15:46 PDT 2014
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:
> 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
> Any thoughts on this?
> I think this might in scope actually make a nice student project for
> some final year comp sci students.
> Messaging mailing list
> Messaging at moderncrypto.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Messaging