At 11:42 07/01/2004 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote:
Jerrold Leichter wrote:
> Now that we've trashed non-repudiation ...
Huh? Processes that can be conclusive are useful and do exist, I read
here,
in the legal domain. It may not be so clear how such processes can exist
in
the technical domain and that's wh
I did a Google search on "irrebuttable presumption" and found a lot
of interesting material. One research report on the State of
Connecticut web site
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2003/olrdata/ph/rpt/2003-R-0422.htm
says: "The Connecticut Supreme Court and the U. S. Supreme Court have
held that i
ot;Anton Stiglic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jerrold Leichter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Cryptography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re:
Ed Gerck wrote:
> Likewise, in a communication process, when repudiation of an act by a party is
> anticipated, some system security designers find it useful to define
> "non-repudiation"
> as a service that prevents the effective denial of an act. Thus, lawyers should
> not squirm when we feel
Jerrold Leichter wrote:
> Now that we've trashed non-repudiation ...
Huh? Processes that can be conclusive are useful and do exist, I read here,
in the legal domain. It may not be so clear how such processes can exist in
the technical domain and that's why I'm posting ;-)
> just how is it differ
| Non-repudiation applied to digital signatures implies that the definition
| states that only one person possibly had possession of the private signing
| key and was conscious about the fact that it was used to sign something.
There is absolutely *no* cryptographic or mathematical content to this
At 10:14 AM 1/7/2004 -0500, Jerrold Leichter wrote:
Now that we've trashed non-repudiation ... just how is it different from
authentication? In both cases, there is a clear technical meaning (though as
with anything in mathematics, when you get right down to it, the details are
complex and may be
- Original Message -
From: "Jerrold Leichter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Cryptography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]
> Now that we've trashed non-
Now that we've trashed non-repudiation ... just how is it different from
authentication? In both cases, there is a clear technical meaning (though as
with anything in mathematics, when you get right down to it, the details are
complex and may be important): To produce an authenticator/non-repudia
>
In business, when repudiation of an act is anticipated we're reminded by
Nicholas Bohm (whose clear thinking I know and appreciate for 6 years)
that some lawyers find it useful to define "irrebuttable presumptions" -- a
technique known to the law and capable of being instantiated in statute or
Ian Grigg wrote:
Which leaves the issue of what we call the property that
differentiates a private key signature from a MAC or MD?
A private key signature can only be produced by the holder of the
private key, and can be verified by anyone (who has the public key).
That is, it is asymmetric, just
Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> My co-author (a lawyer) responds in detail to Ian Grigg's criticisms.
Thanks for that! As I'm not clear whether the status of
the paper is searching of (more, further) detailed criticisms,
I've not commented directly on Mr Bohm's remarks. For the
most part, we are in agre
My co-author (a lawyer) responds in detail to Ian Grigg's criticisms.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
--- Begin Message ---
A
13 matches
Mail list logo
