RE: signture mode and non-repudiation

["Mason, Shane" <smason@blockade.com>]

When I asked my original question, it was to determine if the definition of
non-repuduiation REQUIRED a third party verification.  I was answered in the
affirmative.

So, for authentication, you simply need to verify the identity of someone
talking to you, or that the person that started talking to you is still the
same person.

For non-repudiation, I must be able to tell the identity of the person you
are talking to, or I must be able to determine that you are still talking to
the person with whom you initiated conversation.

Or perhaps "non-repudiation is the ability to provide proof of
authentication to an otherwise uninvolved third party."

Have I got this correct?

ICMan

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Sommerfeld [mailto:sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 5:25 PM
To: Jean Triquet
Cc: 'Bill Sommerfeld'; 'ipsec@lists.tislabs.com'
Subject: Re: signture mode and non-repudiation 


> >> Cryptography isn't needed in a <3 party scenario.
> 
> Please explain this one.

I'm including attackers/adversaries in the count of parties.

						- Bill

---

• Prev by Date: RE: tell me something about the frees/wan
• Next by Date: Re: A problem with public key encrption in IKE (long)
• Prev by thread: Re: signture mode and non-repudiation
• Next by thread: Re: A problem with public key encrption in IKE
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread