Couldn't you use HMAC with shared secret key to authenticate messages while keeping plausible deniability? Since the key is only supposed to be known to the 2 parties, the recipient can deduce that a message was actually sent by the sender if he did not create it himself. I think that's what OTR was using.
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
24 points (92.9% liked)
Privacy
40024 readers
383 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
ooh, i’ll have to think through it, but it sounds like that’d add message integrity without sacrificing deniability. also wouldn’t be much to add. appreciate the feedback!
The knowledge of a shared secret suggests that the message could be authentic. It makes more sense to use asymmetric encryptions (without signatures).
interesting point! i chose symmetric shared key because it means you can’t prove who sent what message.
the shared secret does add some authentication, which i think is necessary. the goal is it only creates enough to be practical (a random person can’t eavesdrop), but not enough to prove things. messages themselves still aren’t authenticated by any one person.
A shared secret implies that the message was sent by someone who knows the shared secret, and that restrict the number of potential senders.
If you mail a message with gpg, everyone knows the public key, and the message is still safe.
you’re not wrong, but that’s just the trade off that has to be made, i think. it’s the only way i can think to do it, at least. need -some- authentication for practical usability.
your gpg example removes the deniability since it proves who wrote the message.
your gpg example removes the deniability since it proves who wrote the message.
You confuse digitally signing a message with the sender's private key, and encrypting a message with the recipient's public key.
also, i’m new to lemmy, so if there are any communities i should cross post this to that may be interested, please let me know!