Viewing profile — reifyx
reifyx
HN member- Joined
- Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 4:40 AM UTC
- HN karma
- 25
- Public activity
- 18 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About reifyx
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #40013609
In Italy I saw a replication of Fra Angelico's Annunciation as a sculpted relief intended for the blind.
-
comment
Comment #39335596
if you work from home, a sticky note with a strong password might be safer than a memorized employee-chosen password
-
comment
Comment #33520372
"Just" is used in chess commentary frequently and usually a bit too flippantly as the speaker hasn't gone through all the necessary calculations as the players have to. Sam Shankla…
-
comment
Comment #33290791
I haven't used this for large deployments but I use it for my personal server and it works perfectly. Almost everything is built in and I can easily write my own custom operations …
-
comment
Comment #32632382
Having played around with Clojure and Scheme for a while (but never got too serious), I always thought homoiconicity and macros were extremely cool concepts, but I never actually r…
-
comment
Comment #31924683
I think both the idea and execution are great. These games would be useful even just as problem statements. I like that each problem clearly defines the desired tone and goals, and…
-
comment
Comment #27339741
Yes, that's exactly what we both agreed on 6 comments ago. The question is, is the ability to delete messages critical enough to require in any possible secure messaging solution, …
-
comment
Comment #27335959
>The premise of cryptographically secure messaging is that you have an adversary recording all your message traffic. Agreed. >Lack of forward secrecy implies, logically, that if yo…
-
comment
Comment #27335149
Your argument is that forward secrecy is important in messaging because forward secrecy is important in messaging? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I actually don't underst…
-
comment
Comment #27334242
I agree with you there. But is your point that any secure email system must critically have forward secrecy, or its insecure? Even though forward secrecy really only gives you any …
-
comment
Comment #27334086
But this only applies for messages that are deleted on your local device (either manually or through an automatic timer). Otherwise, whatever adversary stole your keys can steal yo…
-
comment
Comment #27330798
Assuming you don't want to keep any "chain state" in between messages (which seems reasonable), you can always consume a fresh one-time key of the recipient for every message. The …
-
comment
Comment #27330510
There's this old picture from a 1986 MIT lecture: https://miro.medium.com/max/4448/1*-yaqXNO1tUwVkUpyOqTT7Q@2x... .
-
comment
Comment #27330462
I don't think people want forward secrecy for their email. If they get a new computer, they probably want all their mail on there, right? Isn't porting over their email efficiently…
- story
- story
-
comment
Comment #19010508
Thanks for the reference. Haven't looked into this in a few years, cool to see something has shown up about it now. I guess Sweedler was just having some fun then? Still curious ab…
-
comment
Comment #19010383
When doing some research for a final project about using Grobner bases for cryptography, I came across an interesting paper titled aptly titled "Why You Cannot Even Hope To Use Gro…