it boils down to this: symmetric crypto is much faster than asymmetric crypto. Asymmetric crypto should only be used to exchange symmetric keys and signing.
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Jaap-Henk Hoepman <j...@cs.ru.nl> wrote: > > > I have also, in debate with Jerry, opined that public-key cryptography > is a powerful thing that can't be replaced with symmetric-key cryptography. > That's something that I firmly believe. At its most fundamental, public-key > crypto allows one to encrypt something to someone whom one does not have a > prior security relationship with. That is powerful beyond words. > > I share that belief. Hence my desire to fully understand Bruce's remark. > > Strictly speaking you need some kind of security relationship: you need to > be sure the public key belongs to the intended recipient (and is under his > sole control). So public key crypto allows you to bootstrap from some > authentic piece of information (public key belongs to X) to a confidential > communication channel (with X). > > Jaap-Henk > _______________________________________________ > The cryptography mailing list > cryptography@metzdowd.com > http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography >
_______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
