[1055] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: (Fwd) New crypto bill clears committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kent Crispin)
Sat Jun 21 19:28:33 1997
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:06:27 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: cryptography@c2.net
On Sat, Jun 21, 1997 at 03:48:41PM -0400, Matt Blaze wrote:
> kent@songbird.com said:
> > You have to distinguish between GAK and CACK (Corporate Access to
> > Corporate Keys). Many people believe there is a good case for the
> > latter, but not the former. In fact, the "11 cryptographers" paper
> > says this.
>
> Actually, what we say is that whether corporate key recovery makes sense
> depends very much on the particular application, environment and user:
>
> Quoting key_study.tex:
> \subsection{Communication Traffic vs. Stored Data}
>
> While key ``recoverability'' is a potentially important added-value
> feature in certain stored data systems,
This is the exact line I was referring to. I didn't remember the
exact wording.
--
Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
