File: comment_2_a610b3d056a059899178859a3a821ea5._comment

package info (click to toggle)
git-annex 7.20190129-3
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: main
  • in suites: buster
  • size: 56,292 kB
  • sloc: haskell: 59,105; sh: 1,255; makefile: 225; perl: 136; ansic: 44
file content (10 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 826 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (12)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
[[!comment format=mdwn
 username="http://joey.kitenet.net/"
 nickname="joey"
 subject="comment 2"
 date="2011-04-05T18:41:49Z"
 content="""
I see no use case for verifying encrypted object files w/o access to the encryption key. And possible use cases for not allowing anyone to verify your data.

If there are to be multiple encryption keys usable within a single encrypted remote, than they would need to be given some kind of name (a since symmetric key is used, there is no pubkey to provide a name), and the name encoded in the files stored in the remote. While certainly doable I'm not sold that adding a layer of indirection is worthwhile. It only seems it would be worthwhile if setting up a new encrypted remote was expensive to do. Perhaps that could be the case for some type of remote other than S3 buckets.
"""]]