1995-11-18 - Re: Design proposal: crypto-capable generic interface

Header Data

From: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
To: raph@c2.org (Raph Levien)
Message Hash: eb60f3c38ae0590eb2b04e6f76163eb2d897abbc81173446e4c48876eaea901a
Message ID: <199511181441.JAA02040@homeport.org>
Reply To: <199511180842.AAA06560@infinity.c2.org>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-18 15:02:54 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 23:02:54 +0800

Raw message

From: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 23:02:54 +0800
To: raph@c2.org (Raph Levien)
Subject: Re: Design proposal: crypto-capable generic interface
In-Reply-To: <199511180842.AAA06560@infinity.c2.org>
Message-ID: <199511181441.JAA02040@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

Raph Levien wrote:

|    I propose that the new interface lives as a sort of daemon, rather
| than a static collection of command line script pieces. A reasonable
| way for applications to talk to the daemon would be Unix domain
| sockets, or whatever the equivalent is on Mac and Windows
| platforms. There should be a simple protocol for automatically
| starting up a daemon if there isn't one already running.

	A daemon per user, or per machine?  Either way, I think you
run into problems on a big multi-user machine.  (Either its an extra
process or two per person, or its a great target for attack &

	Its an interesting proposal, but let me ask you this--Why is
it better than a libpgp (or pgp.dll) that offers a variety of services
to programs at multiple levels (ie, offers full one call RSA/IDEA
encryption and compression, as well as ascii armoring, or offers each
of those as a seperate function.

"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."