Nym promises to be the 'better than #Tor' anonymous network - a bold claim but one she says they don't make lightly.
@stman what's your take on Nym? (see OP)
@theruran Cool some new homework. I let you know, I have to read first. Changes are, as it is something "over TCP/IP" like Tor (Vulnerable to the hidden channels + IC serial numbers tagging attack ), and running on unsafe PC's, without any critical execution protection like SGX, that it will be equivalent to Tor in terms of anonymity protection regarding major players like NSA. Still, as it is new, it way work better for a short while, before they adapt their govware to it.
@theruran By the way, talking about the fight agaibst hidden channels in general, I see two complementary approaches :
• Designing and using hidden channel safe protocols. In the current paradigm it's completely fucked up as TCP/IP itself is full of possible hidden channels.
• Garanteeing strict code execution to ensure no malware can insert data into hidden channels. Fully fucked up in the current paradigm.
And then they say guys like us are crazy to desire a new paradigm. LOL.
@theruran And my latest bet is to try to suppress the protocol notion as we know it, that should contribute solving or solve completely hidden channels issues. But this mean a complete change of paradigm for digital systems and cyberspace concept.
Do you have any other idea complementary or approches to stop hidden channels ?
@stman what about printing the messages on paper? or passing thru a transformer that displays an easily verifiable artifact?
unused bits as indicated in specs must either be formally-verified to ensure against their use or removed altogether - possibly making for awkward packing or inefficient representation.
@theruran There are two categories of hidden channels :
• Time based ones,
• Data formats / protocols ones.
Having digital systems and cyberspace concepts fully synchronous can make solving the time based ones easy.
For unused bits issue, I see two approaches : First have no unused bits (Data formats or protocols hidden channel safe), but the second approach I tend to prefer today is get rid of the protocol notion as we know it.
@theruran File formats are to be considered a special category of protocols indeed.
Visualizing things this way is helpfull to envision how to suppress both, protocols and file format.
And here, we're falling back in the path or direction I am exploring by revisiting the memoryspace concept and its dimentional caracteristics and what concept we would push for data.
As you can see, by pushing a new concept for data and memoryspaces, we can feel that we can almost solve everything.
@theruran To improve visualization, we can try to list the differences between file formats, that include the notion of file, and protocols.
We're close from a solution.
We can't see it yet because our mind are still too poluted by the existing paradigm, but you can feel as I do that we're very close.
In 2013, while giving a public conference on free integrated circuits with a nice cypherpunk red mohawk, a french military came to me and told me that hidden channels were their
@theruran worst nightmare. I do fully agree with him, and that it's also the case for me and for true crypto-anarchists.
7 years laters, on our own, you and I are about to find definitive solutions to this big issue, and many more.
But there is a price to pay that we do accept and most military refuse : Digital systems paradigm, concepts, architectures must be fully reengineered from scratch, starting blank page.
This is why we will succeed soon, and why they will fail forever.
@stman I think what you want is to transmit Abstract Syntax Trees, i.e. executable programs. They are only serialized when present in the transmission cables. There are even cryptographic ways for the sender to ensure the program is executed properly. The program's environment is encapsulated or can be swapped with a trusted environment more safely than the joke that are sandboxes today.
It's kinda like sending the image decoder with the image data and metadata. Except these programs can be a lot simpler and more standardized than they are today. We essentially know the breadth of common use cases and can design for that.
@theruran What cryptographic ways are you thinking about ?
And yes, would remain only a serialization issue, but by the way, such issues would be greatly simplified if we are in a fully synchronous paradigm.
The directions of research we have been revealing slowly with all our talks and debates are very coherent. It is obvious we are on the right path to what we want to achieve.
This is the project I was remembering and referencing in my post:
An Ironclad App lets a user securely transmit her data to a remote machine with the guarantee that every instruction executed on that machine adheres to a formal abstract specification of the app’s behavior. This does more than eliminate implementation vulnerabilities such as buffer overflows, parsing errors, or data leaks; it tells the user exactly how the app will behave at all times.
Going through the cryptography section of their website and I found some related topics that may be of interest: verifiable computing, homomorphic encryption, Secure Multi-Party Computation and EzPC, Certification of Symbolic Transactions, and Differential Privacy (also under Database Privacy)
This may catch your attention, from the EzPC page:
Secondly, to execute these protocols, one must express the computation at the low-level of circuits comprising of AND and OR gates, which is both highly cumbersome and inefficient.
So there's a lot here that ought to stimulate your imagination. This is what I imagine for the future of computing is that these cryptographic mechanisms are native and used to guarantee privacy of data and computation.
A bunch of technomancers in the fediverse. Keep it fairly clean please. This arcology is for all who wash up upon it's digital shore.