On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Allison Mankin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Another non-onerous encryption approach I'm finding quite compelling:
> tcpcrypt (tcpcrypt.org).
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think there are in fact ways to have encryption that are not onerous to
> users. Secure HTTP encrypts, although having a standard certificate given
> everybody is not the most "private" way to do things. Diffie-Helman encrypts
> without user involvement. If we put our thinking caps on, I suspect we could
> find a way to encrypt that isn't onerous.
>
Yes, I really like tcpcrypt in concept. The "security" people I've talked to
about tcpcrypt dismissed it rather glibly, but it seems to me that widespread
use of tcpcrypt is both feasible and rewarding in its impact on casual
inspection and consequent change of expectations.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
ietf-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
