Article View: sci.crypt
Article #744guaranteed posting (was Re: Secure network: what form?)
From: Jeffrey M. Keller
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:50
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:50
44 lines
2821 bytes
2821 bytes
I think demonstrating the delivery of postings is overkill, as well as being difficult. Given a moderator for a newsgroup, one could implement a simpler scheme as follows: Let M(n) be the n-th posting to the group D(n) be a digest (e.g. by MD5) of M(n) When the moderator accepts a posting M(n+1), he appends D(n) to it, signs the result, and returns a copy to the poster. The poster is now in a position to prove that he submitted the successor to M(n). In addition, any reader who receives M(n+2) without receiving M(n+1) will detect the omission. (What he does about this is up to him, but at least he knows about the problem.) If the moderator signs two different postings as successors to M(n), and either author gets ahold of a signed copy of the other posting, then he is in a position to discredit the moderator. If there is any means (even non-deterministic) of making public signed postings (e.g. posting them to other newsgroups, uploading them to random BBS's, printing them in the Personals columns of newspapers, etc.), then such inconsistencies are subject to detection. Furthermore, if the moderator does fork the newsgroup in such a fashion, the appended digests prevent seamless merging of the resulting groups. It remains the case that the moderator can refuse or alter a submission to the group, but this is traditionally one of his prerogatives. (Note that having the moderator sign D(n) without seeing M(n) is unnacceptable.) If he alters or fails to sign it, the poster will of course know. If he signs and suppresses it, he compromises himself as soon as he signs the next posting. Of course, he can refuse all postings thereafter, but this is again his prerogative. Finally, a moderator must still be chosen; but now his performance (or, rather, his performance modified by the reliability of the newsfeed) can be effectively monitored. (If you miss a posting, I guess you query archive servers and/or the moderator for it. If they don't reply, I guess you start complaining in other newsgroups. If every moderator refuses your postings, I guess you get paranoid...) -- Jeff Keller <keller@cse.ucsc.edu> CIS Board, UCSC "If X is the answer, what was the question?" --David Fuller
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<17jm6pINN2li@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!slc3.INS.CWRU.Edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!kellerReferences:
<9208272105.AA12700@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!slc3.INS.CWRU.Edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!keller From: keller@cse.ucsc.edu (Jeffrey M. Keller) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: guaranteed posting (was Re: Secure network: what form?) Date: 27 Aug 1992 22:50:01 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards) Lines: 44 Message-ID: <17jm6pINN2li@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> References: <9208272105.AA12700@news.cis.ohio-state.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: oak.ucsc.edu Summary: A more modest approach to secure net-news.