[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re[2]: IKE Public Key Encryption

To: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>
Subject: Re[2]: IKE Public Key Encryption
From: Jim Tiller <jtiller@lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:15:23 -0500
CC: IP Security List <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
In-reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1000322120756.20311E-100000@spsystems.net>
Organization: Lucent
References: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1000322120756.20311E-100000@spsystems.net>
Reply-To: Jim Tiller <jtiller@lucent.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

So, there is merit? I'm glad you agree.

I guess Dan and Dave would have to consider this to be included in the latest
draft of IKE. (?)

Does anyone else have comments to share? This subject has not seen as
much action as I thought it would:)

-jim

HS> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Jim Tiller wrote:
>> Should the public key (cert or key its self, preferably), that is used
>> for the encryption by the initiator, be hashed and included in the third
>> message?

HS> That is, extend the wording slightly so that if there is no cert, the hash
HS> is on the key itself, and make it mandatory?  Makes sense to me. 

HS>                                                           Henry Spencer
HS>                                                        henry@spsystems.net

References:

Re: IKE Public Key Encryption

From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>

Prev by Date: Re: IKE Public Key Encryption
Next by Date: RE: IKE Public Key Encryption
Prev by thread: Re: IKE Public Key Encryption
Next by thread: No Subject
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread