On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To clarify, this is not really "anonymous" in the usual sense.
>
>It does not authenticate the endpoint's identification, other than "same
>place I had been talking to."
>
That's pseudonymity, not anonymity.
>Ther
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 11:38:00AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> >>Although anonymous access is not the primary goal, it is a feature
> >>of the solution.
> >
> >The access is _not_ anonymous. The originator's IP, ISP call traces,
> >phone access records will be all over it and associated audit logs.
Zooko O'Whielcronx wrote:
On 2004, Sep 09, , at 16:57, Hal Finney wrote:
... an extension to IPsec to allow for unauthenticated
connections. Presently IPsec relies on either pre-shared secrets or a
trusted third party CA to authenticate the connection.
No. It can also use RSA public keys without e
Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The point has nothing to do with anonymity;
>
> The last one, agreed. But the primary assumption is that we can avoid a
> lot of infrastructure and impediment to deployment by treating an
> ongoing conversation as a reason to trust an endpoint, rather than
Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>It does not authenticate the endpoint's identification, other than "same place
>I had been talking to."
So in other words it's the same baby-duck security model that's been quite
successfully used by SSH for about a decade, is also used in some SSL
impleme
At 12:57 PM 9/9/2004, Hal Finney wrote:
> http://www.postel.org/anonsec
To clarify, this is not really "anonymous" in the usual sense. Rather it
is a proposal to an extension to IPsec to allow for unauthenticated
connections. Presently IPsec relies on either pre-shared secrets or a
trusted
From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [anonsec] Re: potential new IETF WG on anonymous IPSec (fwd frTo:
"Discussions of anonymous Internet security." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:03:50 -0700
Reply-To: "Discussions of anonymous Internet security." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cl
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:23:06AM -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> "[The suggested proof] is rather incomprehensible," professor Marcus du
> Sautoy of Oxford University told The Guardian, adding that if correct it
> could lead to the creation of a "prime spectrometer" that would bring "the
> whole
On 2004, Sep 09, , at 16:57, Hal Finney wrote:
To clarify, this is not really "anonymous" in the usual sense. Rather
it
is a proposal to an extension to IPsec to allow for unauthenticated
connections. Presently IPsec relies on either pre-shared secrets or a
trusted third party CA to authenticate
