Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]

2004-03-31 Thread Nicholas Bohm
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

Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]

2004-01-09 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler
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

Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]

2004-01-09 Thread Jerrold Leichter
| 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

Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]

2004-01-09 Thread Ed Gerck
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

Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]

2004-01-09 Thread Ian Grigg
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 the

Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]

2004-01-09 Thread John Lowry
: 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-repudiation ... just how is it different from authentication? I don't think

Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]

2004-01-09 Thread Arnold G. Reinhold
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

Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]

2004-01-08 Thread Anton Stiglic
- 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-repudiation ... just how is it different from

Re: [Fwd: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)]

2004-01-07 Thread Jerrold Leichter
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