[cryptography] why did OTR succeed in IM?

2013-03-23 Thread ianG
Someone on another list asked an interesting question: Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not? (The reason this is interesting (to me?) is that there are not so many instances in our field where there are open design competitions at this level. The results

Re: [cryptography] why did OTR succeed in IM?

2013-03-23 Thread Guido Witmond
On 03/23/2013 10:25 AM, ianG wrote: Someone on another list asked an interesting question: Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not? I find that interesting too. What list would that be? Guido. ___ cryptography

Re: [cryptography] why did OTR succeed in IM?

2013-03-23 Thread Ben Laurie
On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote: Someone on another list asked an interesting question: Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not? Because Adium built it in? (The reason this is interesting (to me?) is that there are not so many instances in

Re: [cryptography] why did OTR succeed in IM?

2013-03-23 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/23/13 7:36 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote: Someone on another list asked an interesting question: Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not? Because Adium built it in? In

Re: [cryptography] why did OTR succeed in IM?

2013-03-23 Thread Jon Callas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote: On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote: Someone on another list asked an interesting question: Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?

Re: [cryptography] why did OTR succeed in IM?

2013-03-23 Thread Ben Laurie
On 23 March 2013 16:51, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: 3. It was built into the most popular open-source IM clients (Pidgin and Adium). It isn't actually built in to Pidgin. Should be, IMO. ___ cryptography mailing list

Re: [cryptography] why did OTR succeed in IM?

2013-03-23 Thread Nico Williams
On Saturday, March 23, 2013, ianG wrote: Someone on another list asked an interesting question: Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not? Because it turns out that starting with anonymous key exchange is good enough in many cases. Leap of faith would have been

Re: [cryptography] why did OTR succeed in IM?

2013-03-23 Thread James A. Donald
On 2013-03-24 3:25 AM, Jon Callas wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote: On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote: Someone on another list asked an interesting question: Why did OTR succeed in IM