opinions?
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~tromer/acoustic/
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:42:04AM +, Jason Holt wrote:
However can't one achieve the same thing with encryption: eg an SSL
connection and conventional authentication?
How would you use SSL to prove fulfillment without revealing how?
You could get the CA to issue you a patient or
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 03:03:56AM +, Jason Holt wrote:
[...] Actually, now that you mention Chaum, I'll have to look into
blind signatures with the BF IBE (issuing is just a scalar*point
multiply on a curve).
I think you mean so that the CA/IBE server even though he learns
pseudonyms
On May 10, 2004, at 1:30 PM, Jack Lloyd wrote:
Like it matters. Do you really think that the government would really
allow
Intel and AMD to sell CPUs that didn't have tiny transmitters in them?
Your CPU
is actually transmitting every instruction it executes to the
satellites.
That's a subtle
Like it matters. Do you really think that the government would really allow
Intel and AMD to sell CPUs that didn't have tiny transmitters in them? Your CPU
is actually transmitting every instruction it executes to the satellites.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:14:49AM -0700, Hasan Diwan wrote:
AES is the American Encryption Standard, formerly known as
Rijndael. Does anyone really think the US Government would be so daft
as to adopt an algorithm they don't know how to break?
On May 9, 2004, at 1:36 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
- Forwarded message from Enzo Michelangeli [EMAIL
Brian Dunbar wrote:
Like it matters. Do you really think that the government would really
allow Intel and AMD to sell CPUs that didn't have tiny transmitters in
them?
Your CPU is actually transmitting every instruction it executes to the
satellites.
That's a subtle bit of humor, right?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Adam Back wrote:
After that I was presuming you use a signature to convince the server
that you are authorised. Your comment however was that this would
necessarily leak to the server whether you were a doctor or an AIDs
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:02:12PM +, Jason Holt wrote:
Adam Back wrote:
[...] However the server could mark the encrypted values by encoding
different challenge response values in each of them, right?
Yep, that'd be a problem in that case. In the most recent (unpublished)
paper, I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Adam Back wrote:
OK that sounds like it should work. Another approach that occurs is
you could just take the plaintext, and encrypt it for the other
attributes (which you don't have)? It's usually not too challenging
to
But if I understand that is only half of the picture. The recipient's
IBE CA will still be able to decrypt, tho the sender's IBE CA may not
as he does not have ability to compute pseudonym private keys for the
other IBE CA.
If you make it PFS, then that changes to the recipient's IBE CA can
get
11 matches
Mail list logo
