[15022] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: I don't know PAIN...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Raymond Lillard)
Tue Dec 23 13:37:17 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:10:58 -0800
From: Raymond Lillard <ryl@mmcent.com>
To: crypto <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
In-Reply-To: <3FE4A5CB.8010609@algroup.co.uk>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060406030508080202060909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ben Laurie wrote:
> Ian Grigg wrote:
>> What is the source of the acronym PAIN?
>> Lynn said:
>>> ... A security taxonomy, PAIN:
>>> * privacy (aka thinks like encryption)
>>> * authentication (origin)
>>> * integrity (contents)
>>> * non-repudiation
>>
>> I.e., its provenance?
>>
>> Google shows only a few hits, indicating
>> it is not widespread.
>
> Probably because non-repudiation is a stupid idea:
> http://www.apache-ssl.org/tech-legal.pdf.
OK, I'm a mere country mouse when it comes to cryptography,
so be kind.
I have read most of the above paper on non-repudiation and
noticed on p3 the following footnote:
"Note that there is no theoretical reason that it should be
possible to figure out the public key given the private key,
either, but it so happens that it is generally possible to
do so"
So what's this "generally possible" business about?
A few references will do.
Thanks,
Ray
--------------060406030508080202060909
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf8;
name="ryl.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="ryl.vcf"
YmVnaW46dmNhcmQNCmZuOlJheW1vbmQgTGlsbGFyZA0KbjpMaWxsYXJkO1JheW1vbmQNCmVt
YWlsO2ludGVybmV0OnJ5bEBtbWNlbnRjLm9tDQp4LW1vemlsbGEtaHRtbDpGQUxTRQ0KdmVy
c2lvbjoyLjENCmVuZDp2Y2FyZA0KDQo=
--------------060406030508080202060909--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
