Re: couple more Q's on basic public key encryption techniques
From: xz (jasonshohet_at_gmail.com)
Date: 05/11/05
- Next message: lynn_at_garlic.com: "Re: couple more Q's on basic public key encryption techniques"
- Previous message: spam_at_hut-six.co.uk: "Re: Shotgun Hillclimbing"
- In reply to: Carlos Moreno: "Re: couple more Q's on basic public key encryption techniques"
- Next in thread: Unruh: "Re: couple more Q's on basic public key encryption techniques"
- Reply: Unruh: "Re: couple more Q's on basic public key encryption techniques"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 11 May 2005 08:04:24 -0700
Carlos you are answering it... I think I'm starting to get a rough
understanding of the issue. You said:
" encrypting the whole several megabytes [message] with a public-key
algorithm would be insanely slow. So, both parties agree on a
symmetric algorithm, and exchange the key they're going to use -- to
exchange that key in absolute secrecy, they use public-key (required
only to encrypt a few bytes) ".
So this is answering why people bother with the symmetric encryption of
the message, VS just encrypting the message with the receiver's public
key. Can you tell me if this pseudo-description looks right, and if
so, I have a question beneath it:
msg digest + msg enc. w/ symmetric key + symmetric key enc. w/
receiver's public key
[123a)(*$:@] + [456)@#j*lS:df2@l20f@3f] + [789sf)@f2]
Regarding the above, [123...] is the digest of the message. Thats
encrypted with my private key. I'm kind of confused about this digest
thing. I read somewhere that [123...] is supposed to match [456...]
and if its a match, its 'basically' a digital signature -- and means
the message can't be repudiated. That may not be 100% true, but the
point is -- doesn't that take time to apply my private asymmetric key
to the entire message just to come up with a digest? Aren't we
supposed to avoid using private keys if possible. Why not just use the
symmetric key to encrypt the message & encrypt the symmetric key with
the receiver's public key & be done with it -- no message digest :)
Thanks again
Jason Shohet
- Next message: lynn_at_garlic.com: "Re: couple more Q's on basic public key encryption techniques"
- Previous message: spam_at_hut-six.co.uk: "Re: Shotgun Hillclimbing"
- In reply to: Carlos Moreno: "Re: couple more Q's on basic public key encryption techniques"
- Next in thread: Unruh: "Re: couple more Q's on basic public key encryption techniques"
- Reply: Unruh: "Re: couple more Q's on basic public key encryption techniques"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|