On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Adam Back wrote:
Mark Grant <mark@unicorn.com> writes:
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Adam Back wrote:
To do it properly, you'll need a local eternity server if you want to good security of encrypted documents.
I'd assume that in the end this is what most people would do; get a Usenet feed and run a server locally so that noone knows which URLs you're accessing.
Indeed.
Similar perhaps to web based remailer interfaces, you can turn on SSL, but you're still trusting the server, relying on no hackers being able to crack it, and relying on your estimate of the authenticity of it's certificate
If there got to be a _lot_ of eternity documents this might get impractical. You wouldn't have the disk space for them all.
This is where I see a problem with eternity servers. If I were going to attack such a system, I would just start to have the eternity servers store my core files or some other junk. (Or maybe feed it the SIMTEL or funet.fi archives.) Enough crap so that you could not have enough space to store the real important stuff... And then, if anyone did delete it out of the Eternity server(s), I would yell "censorship" to the freedom knights and/or their fellow travelers... alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.