You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
From the readme: "In the United States, it's illegal to broadcast encrypted messages on amateur radio frequencies.".
Would it be possible to perhaps add a config option to enable encryption support, for users in countries with less restrictive laws on amateur radio use?
Or perhaps could you provide some pointers as to how this could be implemented? I guess it could be put in the same bit as the message signing / verification, but still getting familiar with the codebase...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
You are absolutely right that it could be done by adding a bit in the flags byte in the header, similar to how compression is handled. That bit could indicate that the payload is encrypted. The question is, encrypted using what? A symmetric AES cypher is much more efficient than asymmetric pub/priv key encryption. But a feature of Chattervox is that its connectionless, for better or worse, which can make key exchange tricky.
I'm hesitant to add this functionality as a first-class citizen of the protocol when it's so easy to add encryption on top of the protocol. What I mean by that is, there is nothing stopping you from encrypting the payload contents of the chattervox packets.
Extending your thoughts on encrypting the payload above, what is a good example of how one would decrypt it with chattervox, assuming we know the shared secret?
From the readme: "In the United States, it's illegal to broadcast encrypted messages on amateur radio frequencies.".
Would it be possible to perhaps add a config option to enable encryption support, for users in countries with less restrictive laws on amateur radio use?
Or perhaps could you provide some pointers as to how this could be implemented? I guess it could be put in the same bit as the message signing / verification, but still getting familiar with the codebase...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: