|
Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic): msg#00205encryption.general
Yes, the term "non-repudiation" has been badly misused in old PKIX WG drafts (in spite of warnings by myself and others) and some crypto works of reference -- usually by well-intentioned but otherwise misguided people trying to add "value" to digital certificates. However, IMO non-repudiation refers to a useful and essential cryptographic primitive. It does not mean the affirmation of a truth (which is authentication). It means the denial of a falsity -- such as: (1) the ability to prevent the effective denial of an act (in other words, denying the act becomes a falsity); or (2) the ability to prevent the denial of the origin or delivery of transactions. Note that, except for a boolean system, the affirmation of a truth is not the same as the denial of a falsity. Hence, the usefulness of "non-repudiation" as a primitive. Take away "non-repudiation" and you end up with a lesser "language" with which to describe security processes. Cheers, Ed Gerck --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic): 00205, Amir Herzberg |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: example: secure computing kernel needed: 00205, William Arbaugh |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)i: 00205, Anne & Lynn Wheeler |
| Next by Thread: | Repudiating non-repudiation: 00205, Ian Grigg |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |