1994-02-24 - Re: Mac encryption (sym vs pk)

Header Data

From: “strick – strick AT versant DOT com – henry strickland” <strick@osc.versant.com>
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Message Hash: 29c3c17c775624781c2eb73a77838b2a7a5af863719d9cc39be416494de6ad6b
Message ID: <9402240310.AA29973@osc.versant.com>
Reply To: <199402231756.JAA26289@netcom9.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-24 03:08:51 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:08:51 PST

Raw message

From: "strick -- strick AT versant DOT com -- henry strickland" <strick@osc.versant.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:08:51 PST
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Mac encryption (sym vs pk)
In-Reply-To: <199402231756.JAA26289@netcom9.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9402240310.AA29973@osc.versant.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

# The problem with symmetrical ciphers is one of *scaling*.
# Since a key must be exchanged with each other person, the total number
# of keys growns rapidly as the community of participants increases. At

Russell Brand has observed that many people only send PGP mail to
people with whom they have personally exchanged keys -- that even the
"web of trust" idea is not used as much as the "personal key exchange" idea.

In this case, a single symmetric key exchange transaction between two
friends is is no more cumbersome than the PGP "i'll sign you mine 
if you'll sign me yours".

I have thought seriously about a revival of symmetric key exchange,
with the look and feel of a PGP key signing session, but without
the transitive effect and without the legal hassles.