Re: I don't know PAIN...

Raymond Lillard wrote:

> Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > Ian Grigg wrote:
> >
> > > What is the source of the acronym PAIN?
> > > Lynn said:
> > >
> > > > ... A security taxonomy, PAIN:
> > > > * privacy (aka thinks like encryption)
> > > > * authentication (origin)
> > > > * integrity (contents)
> > > > * non-repudiation
> > >
> > >
> > > I.e., its provenance?
> > >
> > > Google shows only a few hits, indicating
> > > it is not widespread.
> >
> >
> > Probably because non-repudiation is a stupid idea: 
> > http://www.apache-ssl.org/tech-legal.pdf.
>
>
> OK, I'm a mere country mouse when it comes to cryptography,
> so be kind.

:-)

> I have read most of the above paper on non-repudiation and
> noticed on p3 the following footnote:
>
> "Note that there is no theoretical reason that it should be
> possible to figure out the public key given the private key,
> either, but it so happens that it is generally possible to
> do so"
>
> So what's this "generally possible" business about?

Well, AFAIK its always possible, but I was hedging my bets :-) I can 
imagine a system where both public and private keys are generated from 
some other stuff which is then discarded.

> A few references will do.

If you want the gory details, I recommend the Handbook of Applied 
Cryptography by Menezes et al., _not_ the Schneier brick. Warning: 
pretty technical.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx