On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Eugene Leitl wrote: > Clearly, you can maintain a secure connection to an anonymous party. No you cannot. If Bob is anonymous then it is impossible for Alice to know if her secure connection goes to Bob or Mitch. In the classic man-in-the-middle attack Mitch impersonates Bob when talking to Alice and he impersonates Alice when talking to Bob. Did you read the literature on this stuff? [Depends on what you mean by "anonymous". If the anonymous party has a key he uses (i.e. the equivalent of a "nym") there is no problem at all and no need for a CA either... --Perry] > Authentication and security only touch shoulders when you're > trusting the public key server You are not supposed to trust key servers. It is the keys that you trust, because they are signed by someone you trust (the CA or your WOT). Amanda.
- A proposal for secure videoconferencing and video me... James A. Donald
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferencing and... eli+
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferencing and... Eugene Leitl
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferencing... James A. Donald
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferen... Steve Reid
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconf... James A. Donald
- Re: A proposal for secure vide... Steve Reid
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferencing and... amanda
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferencing... James A. Donald
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferencing... William Allen Simpson
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferen... James A. Donald
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconf... Rich Salz
- Re: A proposal for secure vide... James A. Donald
- Re: A proposal for secure ... Derek Atkins
- Re: A proposal for secure ... RL 'Bob' Morgan
- Re: A proposal for secure ... R. Hirschfeld
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferencing and... amanda
- Re: A proposal for secure videoconferencing and... Lynn . Wheeler