Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Confess your love with zero-knowledge

zkcrush.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–205 of 205 posts

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#201

Post by unlaxedneurotic »

Leherenn wrote: post #200
arcastroe wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the mask paper is the same size as the waldo photo, one can trivially tell where waldo is by just looking at the location of the cutout I think for this to work, the piece of paper with the cutout must be much larger than the full waldo photo. The actual cutout would always be in the center of this mask paper. Then the waldo photo can be moved around behind this mask.

But then you cannot prove anymore that you know where Waldo is, no? Previously, the proof relied on the alignment between the picture and mask being constant, but this is no longer the case. Now wherever Waldo actually is, every mask fits since you can just freely move around the picture.

To align the cutout with Waldo, you need to know where he is. Since the entire picture would be hidden behind the mask, the other person won't know where in the picture that location is, but by aligning the mask cutout you can prove _your_ knowledge about Waldo's location.

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#202

Post by evanb »

Leherenn wrote: post #200
arcastroe wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the mask paper is the same size as the waldo photo, one can trivially tell where waldo is by just looking at the location of the cutout I think for this to work, the piece of paper with the cutout must be much larger than the full waldo photo. The actual cutout would always be in the center of this mask paper. Then the waldo photo can be moved around behind this mask.

But then you cannot prove anymore that you know where Waldo is, no? Previously, the proof relied on the alignment between the picture and mask being constant, but this is no longer the case. Now wherever Waldo actually is, every mask fits since you can just freely move around the picture.

The point of the proof is to demonstrate that the prover knows where Waldo is, not to convey Waldo's location to proof recipient.

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#203

Post by jesprenj »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #185
jesprenj wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What attacks?

Among other things, it’s almost certainly the case that the web server isn’t implementing a constant-time string comparison for the URL, which enables you to brute-force the value one character at a time.

Woah, that sounds interesting, do you have any links to share regarding that issue?

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#204

Post by jesprenj »

martin-adams wrote: post #144
jesprenj wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What attacks?

Maybe the browser or an extension leaking the URL of the file, which could ultimately get indexed in a search engine.

Fair point, though search engines are aware of special headers that tell them not to publicize the link to the content. Would it be any safer with the key in the GET parameter string? Search engines still usually treat this string as part of the address.

Re: Confess your love with zero-knowledge

#205

Post by random314 »

vintermann wrote: post #117
staticassertion wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy as an adult. But as a kid I feel like we jumped through soooo many hoops to de-risk telling someone we had a crush on them. I remember those reallllly early games like MASH or even early "compatibility" apps. Very coy.

There's nothing wrong with only wanting to reveal a crush if it's somewhat returned. If it isn't, you're just putting them in an uncomfortable position for no good reason.

And this hash url absolutely doesn't solve this problem
Post reply on HN