RE: The killer app for encryption
At 08:16 PM 12/18/03 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "peered IP telephony"?
Voice telephony requires delays measured in tens of milliseconds. A bit difficult if you also want encryption, anonymity, etc.
The problem handling the delay comes with the network, not the encryption. The encryption can be symmetric, and must be used in a mode that tolerates drops, but its not a big cost when sending 8kbytes/sec.
At 03:47 PM 12/18/2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 08:16 PM 12/18/03 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "peered IP telephony"?
What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS certified modems which have a generalized A/D-D/A capability sufficient to handle voice. Although it opens up the possibility of end-user eavesdropping some of this might be thwarted by randomizing user node selection and detecting/reporting line impedance changes (indicating an extension going off-hook) to the 'client' wising to use the POTS. I suggested this idea to Jeff Pulver, now a VoIP champion, in 1999 but he thought it was too out of the mainstream to be interesting. Now that P2P is beginning to branch out from file sharing maybe this is no longer a far out idea. steve
What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS
I don't get what does this have to do with crypto. Outside crypto, this didn't quite work with (almost) public fax gateways of '90s. In theory, you could send e-mail that would be rasterized and faxed using gateway that was in local calling area and presumably did not incur any charge from the local POTS monopoly. However, I don't see people letting others use their POTS lines, nor I see them using their own for this purpose. Yes, this would essentially eliminate long distance charges for those so equipped ... but if A and B have these gateways and use them, what is the chance of them not being AT the gateway (ie. not having laptops) at any given moment - why bother using POTS in the loop in the first place ? VoIP companies are already doing this and the cost is quite low (calling cards) - why bother? ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
At 06:14 PM 12/18/2003, Morlock Elloi wrote:
What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS
However, I don't see people letting others use their POTS lines, nor I see them using their own for this purpose. Yes, this would essentially eliminate long distance charges for those so equipped ... but if A and B have these gateways and use them, what is the chance of them not being AT the gateway (ie. not having laptops) at any given moment - why bother using POTS in the loop in the first place ?
VoIP companies are already doing this and the cost is quite low (calling cards) - why bother?
Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes and still not have too much latency traffic analysis could take longer than short calls. Since the last gateway could be selected from a potentially large group, in major cities anyway, obtaining a phone tap in time could be come problematic. Also, if long distance charges don't drop to zero soon, it means participating residential users could actually resell their POTS. steve
Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes and
I see. So, in the real world, X uses this to make telephone threats, your POTS gets picked up by random selection as the outgoing node, and gets traced back to from the victim's telephone, LEA visits you and you say ... "I know nothing". Yes, I can see it working and widely adopted. Looks like someone is pumping dumbing gas into cpunks homes. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
At 07:57 PM 12/18/2003, Morlock Elloi wrote:
Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes and
I see.
So, in the real world, X uses this to make telephone threats, your POTS gets picked up by random selection as the outgoing node, and gets traced back to from the victim's telephone, LEA visits you and you say ... "I know nothing".
Yes, I can see it working and widely adopted.
Looks like someone is pumping dumbing gas into cpunks homes.
I'd have no problem letting my phone be so used. What's the difference between that and allowing unknown others using your WiFi? It provides plausible deniability when you decide to do the calling yourself. steve
participants (3)
-
Major Variola (ret) -
Morlock Elloi -
Steve Schear