[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Multicast Key Management (was Re: Anycast)
On 18 Dec 1998 18:49:18 EST you wrote
>
> Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com> writes:
> > The example I chose was poor but note that that application already
> > accepts a certain amount of key piracy-- acceptable loss, it's calculated
> > into their anticipated profits.
>
> If all you want is a fake protocol to deter piracy, well, you don't
> need a real IETF multicast key distribution protocol to do that.
>
> I was under the impression, though, that we all wanted multicast for
> issues like wide scale internet infrastructure protocols, and that we
> needed it secure, not "secure".
We do but there is not going to be a one-size-fits-all multicast key
management protocol any more than there is a single multicast routing
protocol, or unicast routing protocol for that matter. Is RIP a fake
protocol because it can't be used as a border gateway protocol?
> > > Anyone remember the amusing discussion at the D.C. IETF where someone
> > > proposed a multicast key management system to deal with television
> > > broadcasts, and folks kept coming up to say "sorry, but how will you
> > > keep anything known by a million people a secret? how does your
> > > "authentication" authenticate anything worth mentioning?"
>
> > By putting authentication in quotes are you implying that the key
> > is not distributed in a mutually authenticated manner? Would you mind
> > pointing out where in the protocol this is happening?
>
> I believe an example stated was "The President gets on television and
> everyone wants to know that it is really the President."
Wrong somebody then. I never said any such thing. My example was multicast
PPVing a Tyson fight.
But now your talking about *use* of the key which is different than the
implied criticism of a protocol that distributes the key. So I'll take
your changing the subject as meaning that it was just a flippant remark.
Dan.
References: