this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
361 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37727 readers
699 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jlou@mastodon.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Would it be possible to allow exit nodes to blacklist specific kinds of traffic and somehow privately verify that the traffic is not one of the blacklisted kinds (zero knowledge proof perhaps sorry not a CS person)?

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

An exit node can put in place any filters, blacklists, mitm, exploit injection, logging, and anything else it wants... on unencrypted traffic. Using HTTPS through an exit node, limits all of that to the destination of the traffic, there is no way to get a ZK proof of all the kinds of possible traffic and contents that can exist.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What I meant was blacklisting certain destinations. It obviously wouldn't prevent all malicious traffic