[Standards-JIG] Many to many e2e encryption (JEP-116)
sneakin at semanticgap.com
Tue Nov 29 21:50:40 UTC 2005
Justin Karneges wrote:
>On Tuesday 29 November 2005 01:23, Nolan Eakins wrote:
>>As Ralph pointed out, doing things like that means you trust the MUC
>How so? It should be possible to send symmetrically encrypted messages and
>negotiate session keys without the MUC service knowing the keys.
What you're proposing does not require the MUC service to do the
encryption? Could you provide an outline of how you think it should work?
More information about the Standards