[Cryptography] Business opportunities in crypto

Henry Baker hbaker1 at pipeline.com
Fri Apr 16 10:08:48 EDT 2021


At 01:58 PM 4/14/2021, Kent Borg wrote:
>On 4/14/21 12:37 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>Anonymous rendezvous is a vexing problem.
>
>When you put it that way, it sounds pretty impossible.
>
>To rendezvous anonymously, with the intended target and not some random bloke, seems there needs to be some out-of-band agreement as to this identity and expectation. (In blind-date terms: "Meet me in front of City Hall at 2. I'll be carrying a copy of Applied Cryptography, first edition. Ask me 'Can you spare a nonce?'".)
>
>In wifi terms it sounds like a temporary SSID that is communicated out-of-band. By a value said out loud (maybe a QR code to get too fancy). Minimal vexation.
>
>If the problem is repeated anonymous rendezvous (like having a habit of going to deep-cover costume balls and still wanting to find a favorite squeeze), then it still sounds like an out-of-band agreement, but one that can be recycled in a way predictable to the other, ball after ball. I can imagine some approaches here

>But at this point I want to know more about the practical problem being solved. I mean, I don't think people do ad-hoc networks much at all. Why are they interested in this case, why can't one say a randomly generated SSID, and what other constraints are they under? Plenty of vexation in these parts.
>
>-kb, the Kent who has always found Linux ad-hoc wireless networking setup software badly crafted and cumbersome; something that can't be setup and made to work by a normal person.

Re: In wifi terms it sounds like a temporary SSID that is communicated out-of-band.

This is precisely what I'd like to avoid.

If I have a point2point connection within my house, there should be no 'SSID' -- temporary or not -- broadcast that is 'visible' outside the house.



More information about the cryptography mailing list