[16174] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: public-key: the wrong model for email?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ed Gerck)
Thu Sep 16 11:43:34 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:05:15 -0700
From: Ed Gerck <egerck@nma.com>
To: "Weger, B.M.M. de" <b.m.m.d.weger@TUE.nl>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <9F38CF35D80CAE409B979F3EB5242B4A01846669@winex2.campus.tue.nl>
Benne,
With Voltage, all communications corresponding to the same public key can be
decrypted using the same private key, even if the user is offline. To me, this
sounds worse than the PKC problem of trusting the recipient's key. Voltage
also corresponds to mandatory key escrow, as you noted, with all its drawbacks.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
Weger, B.M.M. de wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> What about ID-based crypto: the public key can be any string, such as
> your e-mail address. So the sender can encrypt even before the
> recipient has a key pair. The private key is derived from the ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
