From: anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a6444b1d4f4b9ab54d21580fcd0930b6d1410d03bcc41e6c020da6f459f4dd71
Message ID: <199511260953.BAA10105@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-26 10:00:44 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:00:44 +0800
From: anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:00:44 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Cypherpunk Certification Authority
Message-ID: <199511260953.BAA10105@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Adam Shostack wrote:
> Does X.509 version 3 fix the problem that Ross Anderson points
> out in his 'Robustness Principles' paper? (Crypto '95 proceedings, or
> ftp.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/robustness.ps.Z)
>
> Its an excellent paper, well worth reading, but the basic
> problem is that X.509 encrypts before signing.
You'd rather sign before encryption??
Doesn't that give you "known plain-text" to attack? i.e. the signature.
I'm not sure whether it would or wouldn't, but I'm sure some
cryptographers here might clear that up mighty quick -- before any more
harm is allowed, I mean.
> Adam
>
> --
> "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
> -Hume
Alice de 'nonymous ...
...just another one of those...
P.S. This post is in the public domain.
C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.
Return to November 1995
Return to “James Black <black@eng.usf.edu>”