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

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

2004-01-02 Thread John Kelsey
At 06:24 PM 12/23/03 -0700, Richard Johnson wrote: ... In my eperience, the terminology has more often been confidentiality, integrity, and authentication. Call it CIA if you need an acronym easy to memorize, if only due to its ironic similarity with that for the name of a certain US government

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

2003-12-30 Thread Amir Herzberg
At 18:02 29/12/2003, Ben Laurie wrote: Amir Herzberg wrote: ... specifications, I use `non-repudiation` terms for some of the requirements. For example, the intuitive phrasing of the Non-Repudiation of Origin (NRO) requirement is: if any party outputs an evidence evid s.t. valid(agreement,

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

2003-12-29 Thread Ben Laurie
Amir Herzberg wrote: Ian proposes below two draft-definitions for non-repudiation - legal and technical. Lynn also sent us a bunch of definitions. Let's focus on the technical/crypto one for now - after all this is a crypto forum (I agree the legal one is also somewhat relevant to this forum).

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

2003-12-29 Thread Ben Laurie
Carl Ellison wrote: If you want to use cryptography for e-commerce, then IMHO you need a contract signed on paper, enforced by normal contract law, in which one party lists the hash of his public key (or the whole public key) and says that s/he accepts liability for any digitally signed

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

2003-12-29 Thread Ben Laurie
Carl Ellison wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan Kelm Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic) Ah. That's why they're trying to rename

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

2003-12-29 Thread Ben Laurie
Amir Herzberg wrote: At 04:20 25/12/2003, Carl Ellison wrote: ... If you want to use cryptography for e-commerce, then IMHO you need a contract signed on paper, enforced by normal contract law, in which one party lists the hash of his public key (or the whole public key) and says that

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

2003-12-28 Thread Amir Herzberg
Ian proposes below two draft-definitions for non-repudiation - legal and technical. Lynn also sent us a bunch of definitions. Let's focus on the technical/crypto one for now - after all this is a crypto forum (I agree the legal one is also somewhat relevant to this forum). In my work on secure

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

2003-12-28 Thread Ed Gerck
Yes, the term non-repudiation has been badly misused in old PKIX WG drafts (in spite of warnings by myself and others) and some crypto works of reference -- usually by well-intentioned but otherwise misguided people trying to add value to digital certificates. However, IMO non-repudiation refers

RE: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)

2003-12-28 Thread Carl Ellison
: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic) Ben, Carl and others, At 18:23 21/12/2003, Carl Ellison wrote: and it included non-repudiation which is an unachievable, nonsense concept. Any alternative definition

RE: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)

2003-12-28 Thread Carl Ellison
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan Kelm Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic) Ah. That's why they're trying to rename the corresponding keyUsage

RE: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)

2003-12-28 Thread Carl Ellison
Ellison; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic) At 04:20 25/12/2003, Carl Ellison wrote: ... If you want to use cryptography for e-commerce, then IMHO you need a contract signed on paper, enforced by normal contract law, in which one party

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

2003-12-28 Thread Ian Grigg
Carl Ellison wrote: From where I sit, it is better to term these as legal non-repudiability or cryptographic non-repudiability so as to reduce confusion. To me, repudiation is the action only of a human being (not of a key) and therefore there is no such thing as cryptographic

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

2003-12-28 Thread Ben Laurie
Ian Grigg wrote: Carl and Ben have rubbished non-repudiation without defining what they mean, making it rather difficult to respond. I define it quite carefully in my paper, which I pointed to. Now, presumably, they mean the first, in that it is a rather hard problem to take the cryptographic

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

2003-12-28 Thread Ian Grigg
Ben Laurie wrote: Ian Grigg wrote: Carl and Ben have rubbished non-repudiation without defining what they mean, making it rather difficult to respond. I define it quite carefully in my paper, which I pointed to. Ah. I did read your paper, but deferred any comment on it, in part

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

2003-12-28 Thread Richard Johnson
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 09:45:54AM -0700, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote: note, however, when I did reference PAIN as (one possible) security taxonomy i tended to skip over the term non-repudiation and primarily made references to privacy, authentication, and integrity. In my eperience, the

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

2003-12-28 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler
At 01:34 AM 12/24/2003 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote: However, IMO non-repudiation refers to a useful and essential cryptographic primitive. It does not mean the affirmation of a truth (which is authentication). It means the denial of a falsity -- such as: (1) the ability to prevent the effective denial

RE: Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)

2003-12-28 Thread Peter Gutmann
Carl Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah. That's why they're trying to rename the corresponding keyUsage bit to contentCommitment then: Maybe, but that page defines it as: contentCommitment: for verifying digital signatures which are intended to signal that the signer is committing to the

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

2003-12-26 Thread Ian Grigg
Amir Herzberg wrote: Ben, Carl and others, At 18:23 21/12/2003, Carl Ellison wrote: and it included non-repudiation which is an unachievable, nonsense concept. Any alternative definition or concept to cover what protocol designers usually refer to as non-repudiation

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

2003-12-26 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler
At 11:18 AM 12/23/2003 +0200, Amir Herzberg wrote: Any alternative definition or concept to cover what protocol designers usually refer to as non-repudiation specifications? For example non-repudiation of origin, i.e. the ability of recipient to convince a third party that a message was sent

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

2003-12-23 Thread Amir Herzberg
Ben, Carl and others, At 18:23 21/12/2003, Carl Ellison wrote: and it included non-repudiation which is an unachievable, nonsense concept. Any alternative definition or concept to cover what protocol designers usually refer to as non-repudiation specifications? For example non-repudiation of

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

2003-12-23 Thread Stefan Kelm
Let's just leave the term non-repudiation to be used by people who don't understand security, but rather mouth things they've read in books that others claim are authoritative. There are lots of those books listing non-repudiation as a feature of public key cryptography, for example, and

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

2003-12-23 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler
At 08:23 AM 12/21/2003 -0800, Carl Ellison wrote: That's an interesting definition, but you're describing a constraint on the behavior of a human being. This has nothing to do with cryptosystem choice or network protocol design. What mechanisms do you suggest for enforcing even the constraint

Non-repudiation (was RE: The PAIN mnemonic)

2003-12-22 Thread Carl Ellison
-Original Message- From: Anne Lynn Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 6:42 AM To: Carl Ellison Cc: 'Anne Lynn Wheeler'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The PAIN mnemonic At 11:20 PM 12/20/2003 -0800, Carl Ellison wrote: and it included non

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

2003-12-22 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler
At 08:23 AM 12/21/2003 -0800, Carl Ellison wrote: That's an interesting definition, but you're describing a constraint on the behavior of a human being. This has nothing to do with cryptosystem choice or network protocol design. What mechanisms do you suggest for enforcing even the constraint