Ralph Hartley wrote:
> Why trust anyone? Mallet could very well corrupt all your SLSes,
> especially if you have only one (and security is not just for the
> paranoid).
>
> The obvious solution is for the SLS to show the user agent
> the entries
> themselves. The user agent can verify them just as the SLS
> would, but
> presumably would not mention this to the user unless it
> fails. This is
> equivalent to building an SLS into the browser. A local SLS cache is
> probably a good thing anyway.
Hmmm... Yup, this sounds better. It does add some costs. The client now has to be able to do crypto operations and you're passing around much larger chunks of data. It's probably worth it, since they're one time costs (per modification).
Any other issues/desires?
Tyler