11 lines
826 B
Text
11 lines
826 B
Text
|
[[!comment format=mdwn
|
||
|
|
username="http://joey.kitenet.net/"
|
||
|
|
nickname="joey"
|
||
|
|
subject="comment 2"
|
||
|
|
date="2011-04-05T18:41:49Z"
|
||
|
|
content="""
|
||
|
|
I see no use case for verifying encrypted object files w/o access to the encryption key. And possible use cases for not allowing anyone to verify your data.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
If there are to be multiple encryption keys usable within a single encrypted remote, than they would need to be given some kind of name (a since symmetric key is used, there is no pubkey to provide a name), and the name encoded in the files stored in the remote. While certainly doable I'm not sold that adding a layer of indirection is worthwhile. It only seems it would be worthwhile if setting up a new encrypted remote was expensive to do. Perhaps that could be the case for some type of remote other than S3 buckets.
|
||
|
|
"""]]
|