[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Blind signatures; archives?
At 07:53 AM 6/24/96 -0700, Hal wrote:
>The recent proposals for credentials, such as Carl Ellison's and SDSI,
>don't lend themselves to this. The meaning of the signature is embedded
>in the signed material. If that material is blinded, the signer can't
>know what claims are being made in the material that is signed.
>
>For blinding to work (as far as I can see) the signature key itself
>must determine the meaning of the signature.
If I understand you, you want a signature on a blinded key to become a
certificate the issuer didn't know he made and you want all the content of
that certificate (not just "meaning", now called <auth> in the Internet
Draft I'm working on, but also validity dates, etc.) to be provided in the
signature key itself.
There is that possibility. See the signatures on lissa@world.std.com in the
PGP key database. However, I think we need to go back to the drawing board
and find a way for just the signature key to be blinded while the other
content isn't. Meanwhile, I believe there is a huge need for non-blinded
certs and believe we can't wait for the results of that effort.
- Carl
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison cme@cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc. http://www.cybercash.com/ |
|207 Grindall Street PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103 T:(410) 727-4288 F:(410)727-4293 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+