Viewing profile — shinigami
shinigami
HN member- Joined
- Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 3:24 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 81
- Public activity
- 62 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About shinigami
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #27774130
What monumental cowardice. The "high ideological rhetoric" is something not even mildly "ideological". And then it's their fault that the shitty dudebros of HN had a fit? Please ba…
-
comment
Comment #25144538
> The layperson doesn't have to understand the intricacies of email protocols, it's enough that they consider email to be non-repudiable. They consider it non-repudiable not becaus…
-
comment
Comment #25138429
> The only reason why laypersons consider email to be non-repudiable is because of additional protocols like SPF and DKIM that were implemented after the original spec You really t…
-
comment
Comment #25135875
You do realize that email is older than DKIM? And that commerce existed before emails? You don't need DKIM to solve the issues you've pointed out. Again: How many disputes like tha…
-
comment
Comment #25132155
You can dispute that without DKIM. How many disputes like that have been resolved with DKIM?
-
comment
Comment #25126257
You didn't answer it. In which scenario Amazon would deny sending an email and you would be protected by DKIM?
-
comment
Comment #25122947
Then digitally sign it. Sign and scan it. Do not require signing every single email you send to protect 0,1% of them.
-
comment
Comment #25122932
Why do you need Amazon to digitally sign a contract?
-
comment
Comment #25119782
So maybe digitally sign the contracts instead of unwillingly sign every single email you send?
-
comment
Comment #25117026
Sure. So why do we need DKIM to authenticate contracts?
-
comment
Comment #25117013
I meant: authenticating a contract via email. I guess you sign and scan them?
-
comment
Comment #25117005
Sure. But what authenticates the contract? Do you sign and scan them?
-
comment
Comment #25116999
So... no need for DKIM
-
comment
Comment #25116994
It's still a terrible idea...
-
comment
Comment #25115844
We could catch a lot of criminals if we every OS had a backdoor that the police could access. So, are you in favor of that?
-
comment
Comment #25115818
Good luck arguing that Gmail forged and signed an email from you.
-
comment
Comment #25115730
Entering an contract via an email is a ridiculous idea from the start.
-
comment
Comment #23612740
Exactly, downvotes hurt so much!
-
comment
Comment #23465682
It's the opposite, really. It improved a lot after the heartbleed issue.
-
comment
Comment #22825739
If one implements ECDSA, but does not follow SECG, one is also doing it wrong on multiple levels. Yet here we are.
-
comment
Comment #22825195
That simply does not work in the real world. Also, why does this only applies to crypto? A RCE vuln can have a much larger impact than mishandling cofactors. Should we have canonic…
-
comment
Comment #22825155
It's difficult to assess one's "comfort" with the math. I've been working with crypto for more then 10 years and I wouldn't say that I'm perfectly "comfortable" (e.g. the Ristretto…
-
comment
Comment #22824752
> malleability is not one of them, if one is following RFC 8032 This is like claiming Weierstrass curves don't have any problems if you follow the NIST/SECG standards. The whole po…
-
comment
Comment #22824592
That's a good example of how a "SafeCurve" caused a vulnerability that wouldn't exist in Weierstrass curve. But many smart people made many such mistakes in the past. If we gatekee…
-
comment
Comment #22824217
> Montgomery curves work well with the montgomery ladder, which is easy to use in constant time, and that any 32-byte string is a valid public key for ECDH. You can also have Montg…