ike comments on Open thread, Feb. 9 - Feb. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (321)
But it's dead-simple and robust compared to some sort of in-browser extension which saves the rendered DOM in the background.
I've never needed to prove that. My concern is usually having a copy at all, and the IA is trusted enough that it's a de facto proof.
But it's possible:
If anyone doubts you, they can take the relevant tarball, verify the hash and timestamp to when you say it was, then extract the relevant PCAP, verify the encryption, and then the displayed content.
Good luck.
Pfft says that this wouldn't work at all for proof due to how TLS works. Is that true? Is there no hope, then?
If correct, it's impossible to prove that any server sent a specific piece of data, because it's encrypted symmetrically, and the only proof you have a zero-knowledge and non-transmissible. (Assuming I'm understanding properly.)
I dunno. I'm not an expert on TLS/HTTPS - I assumed that it would be implemented the natural way (signed and encrypted) where my proposal would work. But the devil is in the details...