NODE 8bf3bc29Re: Morality masks technical ignorance
blancw@pylon.comThu, 29 Dec 94 22:41:16 PST
Responding to msg by Adam Shostack ( when bad things happen to
good crypto):
The technical reason to oppose GAK is that it adds points of
failure to a crypto system which need not be there. Those POF
are not adequately tied to the consequences of their actions
(releasing a key
improperly), and as such will be used as points to attack the
integrity of the system.
...............................................................
And if there were no points of failure added by it, would you
approve, agree, to its mandatory requirement?
..
Blanc
NODE ed19e34bRe: Morality masks technical ignorance
Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>Fri, 30 Dec 94 07:41:57 PST
Blanc asks:
| Responding to msg by Adam Shostack ( when bad things happen to
| good crypto):
|
| The technical reason to oppose GAK is that it adds points of
| failure to a crypto system which need not be there. Those POF
| are not adequately tied to the consequences of their actions
| (releasing a key
| improperly), and as such will be used as points to attack the
| integrity of the system.
| ...............................................................
|
| And if there were no points of failure added by it, would you
| approve, agree, to its mandatory requirement?
I wouldn't care. First, any GAK system must add points of
failure. Second, if it didn't add points of failure, it would be
another expensive and pointless government program. Since there are
no points of failure, they can never access my key. Thats not
because key access is arbitrarily defined as a failure, but because
any mechanism that allows them to get my key from a database can be
subverted to get keys for which there is no 'legitimate' need.
Adam
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
NODE 51f7746cRe: Morality masks technical ignorance
roy@cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)Fri, 30 Dec 94 08:24:17 PST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In list.cypherpunks, blancw@pylon.com writes:
>
> Responding to msg by Adam Shostack ( when bad things happen to
> good crypto):
>
> The technical reason to oppose GAK is that it adds points of
> failure to a crypto system which need not be there.
[...]
> And if there were no points of failure added by it, would you
> approve, agree, to its mandatory requirement?
Sorry, blanc, but the very existance of GAK is a point of failure.
- --
Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy@cybrspc.mn.org
PGP public key available by mail
echo /get /pub/pubkey.asc | mail file-request@cybrspc.mn.org
These are, of course, my opinions (and my machines)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1
iQCVAwUBLwOzQxvikii9febJAQH0XgQAnL/dMtrIgu7L1dgjswOD4LZH6yZHkZ0x
V4ZFlm9oCCc089p6XaQgaOZTcBSfKiTlVHq4BXV2EWpm6ULX77rvn1cHSbmOdpvc
hjFc8bbPg586if+oGRCNXs2yO5s+KQygQh72w9D3zCVDMaFaJzCZqoa9WmMT6HmM
YsJJz5ytGCY=
=rlpe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----