From 30801372e2c0fbce198154370990a7c463bc5c4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://joey.kitenet.net/" Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:15:18 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment --- ...comment_3_e1f39c4af5bdb0daabf000da80858cd9._comment | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/S3_bucket_uses_the_same_key_for_encryption_and_hashing/comment_3_e1f39c4af5bdb0daabf000da80858cd9._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/S3_bucket_uses_the_same_key_for_encryption_and_hashing/comment_3_e1f39c4af5bdb0daabf000da80858cd9._comment b/doc/bugs/S3_bucket_uses_the_same_key_for_encryption_and_hashing/comment_3_e1f39c4af5bdb0daabf000da80858cd9._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..c5bb26f595 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/S3_bucket_uses_the_same_key_for_encryption_and_hashing/comment_3_e1f39c4af5bdb0daabf000da80858cd9._comment @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="http://joey.kitenet.net/" + nickname="joey" + subject="comment 3" + date="2011-03-30T18:15:18Z" + content=""" +Yes, encrypting the symmetric key with users' regular gpg keys is the plan. + +I don't think that encryption of content in a git annex remote makes much sense; the filenames obviously cannot be encrypted there. It's more likely that the same encryption would get used for a bup remote, or with the [[special_remotes/directory]] remote I threw in today. +"""]]