PFS #833

New Issue

2016-01-04T19:17:34+01:00

PeterSurda commented

2016-01-04 19:17:34 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

A new address version that contains expiring ephemeral subkeys (which are not a part of the address itself) would allow something like PFS. It requires some design, to make sure they keys are not deleted prematurely for example.

For a proposal, see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitmessage/comments/3zzevp/forward_secrecy_for_bitmessage/

A new address version that contains expiring ephemeral subkeys (which are not a part of the address itself) would allow something like PFS. It requires some design, to make sure they keys are not deleted prematurely for example. For a proposal, see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitmessage/comments/3zzevp/forward_secrecy_for_bitmessage/

👍 1

ghost commented

2016-01-09 05:46:19 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

There is another proposal in #454 .

It has some interesting ideas, but it requires an extra round trip to set up a session. It also tries to swap old keys with new ones, but I fail to see how old keys are properly destroyed. Security-wise I think it is similar to my current proposal.

There is another proposal in #454 . It has some interesting ideas, but it requires an extra round trip to set up a session. It also tries to swap old keys with new ones, but I fail to see how old keys are properly destroyed. Security-wise I think it is similar to my current proposal.

👍 1

PowerPress commented

2020-02-11 15:44:15 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Has there been any success in implementing this or any other PFS in bitmessage?

This repo is archived. You cannot comment on issues.

1 Participants

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Bitmessage/PyBitmessage-2025-02-25#833