Re: [Monotone-devel] Security is hard. Let's work on policy branches anyway.

[Nathaniel J. Smith]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:10:30PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Timothy" == Timothy Brownawell <Timothy> writes:
> 
>     Timothy> You don't identify the key by a human-readable
>     Timothy> name. Instead, you identify it by its hash, and there's a
>     Timothy> users/ section in the policy tree that maps the hash to
>     Timothy> something human-readable for UI purposes. So you rename
>     Timothy> the lost key, and add the new one (maybe even with the
>     Timothy> same name).
> 
> Unfortunately, as currently implemented, get_netsync_read_permitted
> and get_netsync_write_permitted (and probably others), use the
> human-readable name, not the hash.
> 
> In fact, according to the documentation, what you describe cannot
> happen, as it is not possible to have more then one key share the same
> human readable name:

Yes, emphasis on "as currently implemented" :-).

All this discussion is design work for the rewrite of all of
monotone's security stuff, because as you note, the current stuff is
really limited.

-- Nathaniel