Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)

At 18:02 29/12/2003, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Amir Herzberg wrote:
> ...
> > specifications, I use `non-repudiation` terms for some of the 
> > requirements. For example, the intuitive phrasing of the Non-Repudiation 
> > of Origin (NRO) requirement is: if any party outputs an evidence evid 
> > s.t. valid(agreement, evid, sender, dest, message, time-interval, NRO), 
> > then either the sender is corrupted or sender originated message to the 
> > destination dest during the indicated time-interval. Notice of course 
> > that sender here is an entity in the protocol, not the human being 
> > `behind` it. Also notice this is only intuitive description, not the 
> > formal specifications.
>
> What you have here is evidence of origin, not non-repudiation.

Ben, thanks, I'll change to this term (`evidence` instead of 
`non-repudiation`) since it appears from this thread that it may avoid 
confusion (at least for some people).


Best regards,

Amir Herzberg
Computer Science Department, Bar Ilan University
Homepage (and lectures in applied cryptography, secure communication and 
commerce): http://amir.herzberg.name

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