On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, David Honig wrote: > > If you have a secure channel to exchange a passphrase in, > you have no need for PK. > Public key allows digital signatures, which a secure channel for key exchange doesn't provide. Two parties may choose to use symmetric encryption for exchanging messages and agree between themselves to accept any message encrypted with the secret key to be a binding expression - but this method does not prevent Alice from encrytping a message to herself and claiming it came from Bob. Either party can cheat in this way with symmetric key.
- reflecting on PGP, keyservers, and the Web of Trust Greg Rose
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyservers, and the Web of ... Nelson Minar
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyservers, and the Web of ... Ed Gerck
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyservers, and the Web... David Honig
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyservers, and the... Arnold G. Reinhold
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyservers, and... David Honig
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyservers... Bill Frantz
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyservers, and the... Dan Geer
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyservers, and... David Honig
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyservers... P.J. Ponder
- Re: reflecting on PGP, keyser... David Honig
- Re: reflecting on PGP, ke... Ray Dillinger
- Re: reflecting on PGP, ke... Ted Lemon
- Re: reflecting on PGP, ke... Ray Dillinger
- Re: reflecting on PGP, ke... Derek Atkins
- Re: reflecting on PGP, ke... Ted Lemon
- Re: reflecting on PGP, ke... Ben Laurie
- Re: reflecting on PGP, ke... Derek Atkins
- Re: reflecting on PGP, ke... Bodo Moeller
- More thoughts on Man in ... Arnold G. Reinhold