From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: crasm@wireguard.1.email.vczf.io Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 30134405 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 06:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id df75db3b for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 06:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB9920DC6 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1492931136.3430679.953148112.4F826684@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: crasm@wireguard.1.email.vczf.io To: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:05:36 -0400 Subject: Re: potential preshared-key changes List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Forgive me in advance if this is a horrible or misinformed idea, but why not blake2s the preshared-key with each peer's public key and distribute that as a per-peer "preshared" key, mixing it in last? That would reduce the risk of key compromise, since each peer would have a unique key and the real key is not copied to each peer. I do like identity hiding, but I can't tell if there's a way for the above to work without exposing public keys (at least considering roaming IPs).