Re: Newbie packet verification/signing
From: Jeffrey Spoon (JeffreySpoon_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/29/05
- Next message: Tim Peters: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Previous message: fishfry: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- In reply to: Mack: "Re: Newbie packet verification/signing"
- Next in thread: Paul Rubin: "Re: Newbie packet verification/signing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:22:47 +0000
In message <mdcnv0dh8606438rpee71sqqugf0s75hf0@4ax.com>, Mack
<macckone@a_nospamjunk123_ol.com> writes
>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:46:13 +0000, Jeffrey Spoon
><JeffreySpoon@hotmail.com> wrote:
<Good stuff snipped>
>
>I posted a protocol a while back (you can google for it). It did not
>address signature compromise and revokation. It used a single tiered
>model with a trusted public key signer. It did not address how the
>keys were signed (OOB). Its primary use is a command protocol with
>infrequent mostly one way communication.
>
Thanks for the advice but I'm thinking this is quite serious overkill
for what I'm doing. However I'll look into the things you have suggested
and your protocol. Thanks
-- Jeffrey Spoon
- Next message: Tim Peters: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Previous message: fishfry: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- In reply to: Mack: "Re: Newbie packet verification/signing"
- Next in thread: Paul Rubin: "Re: Newbie packet verification/signing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
