[5357] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: palm crypto
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Dierks)
Fri Aug 6 10:05:07 1999
From: "Tim Dierks" <tim@dierks.org>
To: "Ian Goldberg" <iang@cs.berkeley.edu>, <cryptography@c2.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:36:34 -0700
In-reply-to: <7o7jsd$4t4$1@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
The intended feature was to demonstrate the performance of elliptic curve
private key operations on an embedded platform. Functionality was a
secondary concern. The implementation doesn't have a PKI, so it doesn't
allow you to transfer messages, get certificates, etc., so the use you
describe isn't actually functional. The only (agreed minimal) benefit of
public key is that you can encrypt a message without entering your password;
you only need it to decrypt.
Of course, adding message transfer & PKI would be an interesting project
(although my recommended mechanism would be to support ECC in OpenPGP
formats for the messages, or ECC S/MIME). If someone would be interested in
working on Secure MemoPad, you can contact me.
- Tim
Tim Dierks
VP of Engineering, Certicom
tdierks@certicom.com
510.780.5409 [Hayward] -- 905.501.3791 [Mississauga]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cryptography@c2.net [mailto:owner-cryptography@c2.net]On
> Behalf Of Ian Goldberg
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 1:36 PM
> To: cryptography@c2.net
> Subject: Re: palm crypto
>
>
> In article <001201bedc8b$3d5fb580$e3cf54ca@asiainter.net>,
> Enzo Michelangeli <em@who.net> wrote:
> >What's the point of using publick key technologies like ECC to protect
> >private documents? As key management is a non-issue, something based on,
> >say, 3DES or IDEA (like "Secret!", http://linkesoft.com/english/secret/)
> >would suffice...
>
> I had the same thought. I finally decided that the ability to write a
> memo, encrypt it to some *other* pubkey, and beam it to the recipient is
> sufficiently useful to warrant the existence of this program. Keeping
> your *own* files secret is a special case.
>
> - Ian
>
>
