Subj : Re: binkd crypt
To : NuSkooler
From : tenser
Date : Thu Jan 04 2024 03:51 am
On 02 Jan 2024 at 07:27p, NuSkooler pondered and said...
Nu> tenser around Wednesday, January 3rd...
Nu> Te> Oh, I don't know: incremental progress towards security as a goal may
Nu> Te> slow, but is still progress, no?
Nu>
Nu> I'd argue that it's just a false sense of security, which can be worse
Nu> than none.
Perhaps. It wouldn't protect against any number of other
attack vectors, but neither would a new protocol. On the
other hand, if binkp regularly ran over TLS-protected
connections, it would be (largely) immune to passive sniffing.
Not that that matters much; I doubt the greater BBS community
is passing any traffic that _requires_ it.
Nu> If we were to implement a *new* protocol that is always encrypted, that
Nu> would be a better start -- only policy can prevent people from exposing
Nu> the messages elsewhere though + old setups will inherently be left out.
A way around that would be a proxy at the edge of that system's
local network that handles encryption. It's not completely
end-to-end, but does it need to be?
