Re: GUCAPI (Grand Unified Crypto API)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


Derek Atkins writes:
 > Why do all this?  There already exists a Generic Security System API,
 > GSSAPI, which is an Internet standard (or there is at least an Internet
 > Draft -- I'm not sure what the current status is right now, and given
 > that the IETF is going on this week, it's status may change).

Ah, I knew of the GSSAPI's existence but hadn't realized that its scope
included what I wanted.  I'll read the draft on the internic and see
if it does what I want.  If so, the next logical step is to wrap RSAREF
in it and to make a PGPish-wraparound.

I'd certainly be up to the former;  Would anybody else be interested in
ponying up their time and effort for the PGP instance?  (The draft
is ftpable from ftp.internic.net,
/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cat-gssv2-00.txt)
- --
Todd Masco     | "'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty-Dumpty said, in a rather
cactus@hks.net |  scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -
cactus@bb.com  |  neither more nor less.'"   - Lewis Carroll
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service

iQBFAwUBLuT4LCoZzwIn1bdtAQHh9wF/TyMkm4Cd0gFzk26mdufgytY6NnHfiT3C
heS9ACR9d8jwS2pu8/wvF84+sQs0nTEc
=bY6Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

`"L. Todd Masco"' wrote:
> Ah, I knew of the GSSAPI's existence but hadn't realized that its scope
> included what I wanted.  I'll read the draft on the internic and see
> if it does what I want.  If so, the next logical step is to wrap RSAREF
> in it and to make a PGPish-wraparound.
> 
> I'd certainly be up to the former;  Would anybody else be interested in
> ponying up their time and effort for the PGP instance?  (The draft
> is ftpable from ftp.internic.net,
> /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cat-gssv2-00.txt)
>

Ohh, I misinterpreted. You're talking about a high level interface that
assumes cryptographic operations are already being used for specific
purposes (ie. `signature', `GetMIC', `VerifyMIC', `Wrap', `Unwrap').

I was thinking more about the layer below this, the primitive operations 
that don't make assumptions on what the user is going to do; and 
limitations placed thereupon.

ps.

In the middle of the year I worked on a Radio Show that delved into the
PGP and Clipper debarcle, it was titled `Tales from the Crypt'.
Subsequently I submitted it for a Government sponsored contest for
excellence in technical, science and engineering journalism. I found
out yesterday that I've taken out a prize for the best work conducted
by someone under the age of 26. There is a certain irony in being
awarded the prize by a Government department :-).

--
Matthew Gream
(sw/hw engineer)
<M.Gream@uts.edu.au>
(02) 821-2043