Malte Borcherding wrote: > I do not think that the encryption layer should be used as a means to securely > transport information about the intended recipient, Actually, the recipient's not the problem (at least the one I was talking about), but the encryptor. As you imply, if this is a concern, then its sensible to include the encryptor's name (or keyInfo or whatever identifying string) in the plaintext. I also would hate to see anyone mandate sign/wrap/sign ("please enter you PIN..." pause..."please enter you PIN..."). However, for the specific case of signed(wrapped(msg)), since the keyInfo in the Signature carries identification, if that were inside the encryption then the solution would be neat. I've no idea how this could be done however, so maybe we should just drop the thread and get on with discussion encryption. Stephen. -- ____________________________________________________________ Stephen Farrell Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 647 7406 61 Fitzwilliam Lane, fax: +353 1 647 7499 Dublin 2. mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Ireland http://www.baltimore.comReceived on Tuesday, 29 August 2000 05:56:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 27 May 2007 00:08:54 GMT