mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Added a comment

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
http://joey.kitenet.net/ 2011-04-05 18:41:49 +00:00 committed by admin
parent 683ad73e7d
commit 08a23997dd
1 changed files with 10 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
doc/design/encryption/comment_2_a610b3d056a059899178859a3a821ea5._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
[[!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.
"""]]