--
At 09:59 AM 8/31/2000 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
> It looks like your argument is not with the SIP WG but with the CAT
> WG. I'm sure a lot of folks there would be willing to entertain (or
> not) this argument. In particular, the assertion that that Kerberos
> is inherently subject to dictionary attacks looks more like an
> indictment against symmetric key cryptography in general, rather
> than Kerberos in particular.
There is nothing special about symmetric key cryptography that makes it
particularly subject to dictionary attacks. In all public key solutions,
the public keys are used to set up a symmetric key that is not subject to
dictionary attacks.
It is probably possible to set up a system with properties similar to those
that I outlined using nothing but symmetric key cryptography, though it
would be more complex, hence harder to understand and harder to get right.
Existing symmetric key solutions (Kerberos) are vulnerable to dictionary attack
Existing public key solutions are hard to use and unpopular. This is a
property of the particular implementations, and the particular tasks for
which they are used, not a property of the underrlying technology
Most proposed alternatives to Kerberos work the same way as kerberos does
for the user, and are arguably simpler in their internal implementation,
but employ public key operations internally.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
sz1++Q1L/bMWO8371Rxt7o5B/H0Xsn6u/sX227rI
4PFseTKUfAEU9X1rCbMXXjjvrDk7PeeoknjQHHjJr
