WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
> From what you've said, this appears to be a shared key system which
> provides marginal protection against abuse of the cache but with wide
> distribution of the key, it does seem to me to be providing a
> significant challange to abuse of the key.
> As I understand the suggested use case, a cache will have encrypted
> content placed there by the content owner (or agent) and then multiple
> users will be provided the URL and key for retrieval.
> Sounds pretty weak to me.
What would you suggest instead?
Note that there is no more risk to giving the users the key than there is
from giving them the content itself, as far as I can tell.
A typical use case would be some parents taking a video of their daughter,
and uploading it to YouTube marked as a private video (knowledge of the
URL is what is required to access it). The grandparents would then be
given the URL to the video, so they can see it. Today, there's no way to
put the video on an untrusted CDN, which means that to protect the video
from unauthorised access, one has to compromise performance (the data will
be further from the grandparents than it could if on the untrusted CDN).
In this scenario, the grandparents are trusted with the content and with
the URL to the content. Why would they not be trusted with the key?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'