Wouldn't using sinature as outermost layer favout traffic analysis? I would
prefer to use encryption for that, possibly in a stego-able way.
And, if we are ready to make radical changes, it would be nice to have a
cryptosystem without any secret keyring, like Pegwit: what doesn't exist
can't be stolen. I suppose that any discrete-log algorithm would be eligible
(not only ECC).
Enzo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralf Senderek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "L. Sassaman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Is PGP broken?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> "L. Sassaman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Shameless plug: Ben Laurie and I were discussing this exact topic
earlier
> > this month. I'm going to England next month to sit down and hash out
> > exactly what we want to do, but we would like to add OpenPGP features to
> > OpenSSL. [...] I think the benefits of having an
> > Apache-style licensed OpenPGP toolkit are obvious.
>
> This is a grand idea and I hope you will receive widespread support.
> But I would like to ask you to do me (and others) the favour to interprete
> the RFC-2440 (OpenPGP-Standard) in a way that the number of unsigned
> packets in signatures is definitely zero. This would be the way one
> would think of a signature in the non-digital world anyway.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Ralf
>
>
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
> * Ralf Senderek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * What is privacy
*
> * http://senderek.de * without
*
> * Tel.: 02432-3960 Sandstr. 60 D-41849 Wassenberg * PGP-2.6.3i?
*
>
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3ia
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQCVAwUBOio0KSmc/oJTgiNJAQGWjgQAle2fU2syOy/NzHSN8IcUQ0Xi5zZbc9sx
> ca2rhOyRnm2TWehdRnt0vzHHl/cOsyOtlGc8407aYiHY0d2wsmbO7/TYumNRW7PO
> CJu9PJKIF5nMKVr2HeAJi2g/0jrJI9h1GIewP6rmKURCLzKhhu9FribILAp88OxO
> CDFLSWCdzZg=
> =qCZ+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
