Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Transport encryption

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker]

In message <address@hidden> on Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:36:16 +0100, Bruce Stephens 
<address@hidden> said:

monotone> Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <address@hidden> writes:
monotone> 
monotone> [...]
monotone> 
monotone> > I'm not sure why we would want to use anonymous cipher
monotone> > suites.  We currently sign the stream both ways, right?
monotone> > Why should we stop?
[...]
monotone> I'm suggesting another would be to leave monotone's protocol
monotone> just as it is (complete with signing), and just to use TLS
monotone> to provide an encryption wrapper around it, for those that
monotone> want such a thing.  

Not having played with the anonymous cipher suites at all, I'm really
walking on thin ice when talking about it.  I was under the impression
that all the anonymous cipher suites used EDH (Ephemeral DH?), so
using that would also require a bit more of monotone than you might
think...

monotone> > I can inform you, again, that OpenSSL supports
monotone> > non-blocking I/O.
monotone> 
monotone> I know.  monotone is under the GNU GPL, and OpenSSL's
monotone> licence doesn't quite fit with that.  (On the whole, I'd be
monotone> in favour of adding the standard exception to permit
monotone> monotone to link with OpenSSL, but maybe there's something
monotone> GNU GPL required by monotone that would prevent that.)

Oh, right, the farking license incompatibility thingy, I forgot about
that...

Cheers,
Richard

-----
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte                         address@hidden
                                        http://richard.levitte.org/

"When I became a man I put away childish things, including
 the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
                                                -- C.S. Lewis