Re: High Latency Offline Conversations

[David Barksdale]

On 7/5/20 11:44 AM, Cy wrote:
> How high-latency can a gnunet-conversation be? It seems once you do the
> initial ECDH handshake to get a shared secret, you could keep that
> secret around pretty much forever. I was thinking of a UI where
> conversations were like email exchanges, where you could compose it at
> your leisure, and reply whenever. Is that feasible?
> 
> I know in theory if we both have a shared secret, then if I publish a
> gnunet-fs://ksk record with that secret as the keyword, then you're the
> only one who can find it, the only one who can decrypt it, and we might
> not even have to be online at the same time because intermediate nodes
> can cache it. But I don't think gnunet-conversation uses ksk records? It
> just sends encrypted data through temporary tunnels that require low
> latency and simultaneous presence online, right?
> 
> If so, would it be good to augment gnunet-conversation to use KSK
> records as a backup to synchronize unsent messages, when tunnel
> establishment fails? Or would it be better to have a different "private
> message" service entirely, that only used gnunet-fs? Can a
> diffie-hellman key exchange be performed over gnunet-fs without some
> crippling security failure?

Here's a draft of a high-latentcy chat protocol using gnunet-fs:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302143609/http://www.gnunet.org/drupal/node/306