Jump to content

Talk:Interlock protocol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Intgr (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 31 May 2010 (add section title per WP:TALK). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconComputing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Clarify "zipless"

What does "zipless" mean for a secure channel? --68.102.252.87 06:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forced latency protocol

I'm the inventor the Forced Latency Protocol. The Forced Latency Protocol is not a variant or an extension of the Interlock Protocol. They are both protocols which attempt to defend against Man-In-The-Middle attack even when the honest participants do not share any pre-existing keying material. There the similarities end. --Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zooko (talkcontribs) 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The concept seems pretty analogous, both rely on an all-or-nothing transform and split encrypted messages in half. The only thing that's changed is the added delay. But obviously I'm no expert. Can you explain what am I missing?
Also I am unable to locate any sources for the forced-latency protocol (all that I can find on the Internet are based on this Wikipedia article). I doubt it can satisfy the notability criteria so it does not warrant its own article. Alternatively it can be removed entirely on the basis of failing verifiability. -- intgr [talk] 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]