🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 17258@netcom.com, rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
|>This all assumes that you have a secure means of getting your public key
|>to the other or an authenticated one.  Both seem equivalent in the end
|>to swapping a secret key to me.  This makes me question the fundamentals
|>of PK actually.

Although the early claims that PKE has the capability of establishing
a secure message channel without requiring the use of a secure key-exchange
channel have since been proven false, I suggest that PKE still offers
considerable value due to its asymmetric nature.

Asymmetric encryption (AE) provides the capability to digitally sign messages 
in a way that "cannot" be forged while allowing the recipient to verify the
signature.  Since the same key-pair can also be used to exchange secure
messages with the same "individual," my key management problem is more
tractable than if I had to maintain two keys (one for secure messages, which
could be symmetric or asymmetric, & one for suthentication, which *must* be
asymmetric).  In addition, the degree & kind of protection which must be
provided for the public part of an asymmetric key is *much* more easily
provided than that which must be provided for a symmetric key.

I suggest these are non-trivial advantages.


--- --- --- --- ---
	   _   _
    /_    / ) / ) Jeff Hull           j.hull@vulcan-gw.den.mmc.com
   //_) -/- -/-   1544 S. Vaughn Cir  
/_/ \_/ /   /	  Aurora, CO 80012    303-977-1061

No matter where you go ... there you are.
#include <standard.disclaimer.h>