Inferencium/website
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Activity

Add table of contents. Indent code to match coding style.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
inference 2023-03-14 05:51:05 +00:00
parent 73e07b7258
commit 9ef8c5a8b4
Signed by: inference
SSH Key Fingerprint: SHA256:9Pl0nZ2UJacgm+IeEtLSZ4FOESgP1eKCtRflfPfdX9M
1 changed files with 125 additions and 92 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

43
blog/untrusted_the_issue_with_decentralisation.html
View File

@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
<!-- Copyright 2022-2023 Jake Winters -->
<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause-Clear -->
<!-- Version: 3.0.0.11 -->
<!-- Version: 3.1.0.12 -->
<html>
@ -42,7 +42,29 @@
<p class="update_date">Updated: 2022-10-29 (UTC+00:00)</p>
<br>
<h4>Introduction</h4>
<!-- Table of contents. -->
<h2 id="toc"><a href="#toc" class="h2"
>Table of Contents<a/></h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="#introduction" class="body-link"
>Introduction</a></li>
<li><a href="#examples" class="body-link"
>Examples</a></li>
<ul>
<li><a href="#examples-messaging" class="body-link"
>Messaging</a></li>
</ul>
<li><a href="#solution" class="body-link"
>Solution</a></li>
<li><a href="#conclusion" class="body-link"
>Conclusion</a></li>
</ul>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h2 id="introduction"><a href="#introduction" class="h2"
>Introduction</a></h2>
<p>A recent trend is seeing people move towards decentralised services and platforms. While this is
reasonable and I can understand why they are doing such a thing, they are seemingly doing it without
thinking about the possible consequences of doing so. The issue with decentralisation is trust;
@ -50,7 +72,12 @@ there is no way to pin a key to a specific person, to ensure that you are commun
same person you are supposed to be communicating with. In this article, I will discuss some of the
security issues with the decentralised model.</p>
<br>
<h4>Example: Messaging</h4>
<br>
<h2 id="examples"><a href="#examples" class="h2"
>Examples</a></h2>
<h3 id="examples-messaging"><a href="#examples-messaging" class="h3"
>Messaging</a></h3>
<p>When it comes to messaging your contacts on a centralised platform, such as Twitter or Facebook,
the keys are pinned to that user account, using the user's password as the method of identification.
This approach makes it impossible to log in as a specific user without their password, should it be
@ -74,7 +101,10 @@ literally no way to know if the person you are communicating with is the real pe
there is no root of trust. This point is fatal; game over. The only way to establish trust again
would be to physically meet and exchange keys.</p>
<br>
<h4>Solution</h4>
<br>
<h2 id="solution"><a href="#solution" class="h2"
>Solution</a></h2>
<p>I'll cut to the chase; there isn't a definitive solution. The best way to handle this situation
is to design your threat model and think about your reasoning for avoiding centralised platforms. Is
it lack of trust of a specific company? Is it the possibility of centralised platforms going
@ -113,7 +143,10 @@ currently available to me. While the domain name registrar or virtual private se
tamper with my domain and data, they are the most trustworthy parties available. In its current
form, decentralisation would make this impossible to implement in any form.</p>
<br>
<h4>Conclusion</h4>
<br>
<h2 id="conclusion"><a href="#conclusion" class="h2"
>Conclusion</a></h2>
<p>Do not demand anonymity; demand privacy and control of your own data. Complete anonymity makes it
impossible to have a root of trust, and is typically never necessary. It is possible for someone
else to hold your keys, without them taking control of them and dictating what you can and cannot do