- From: Takeshi Imamura <IMAMU@jp.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 00:24:45 +0900
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Cc: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>, John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, "Hiroshi Maruyama" <MARUYAMA@jp.ibm.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org
John, I understand what you say, but I feel that it's natural to distinguish signature over encrypted data from signature over its clear text (i.e., signing encrypted data does not mean that you agree on its clear text) and so I like Joseph's example. Do you know any cases where both signatures are regarded as the same? Thanks, Takeshi IMAMURA Tokyo Research Laboratory IBM Research imamu@jp.ibm.com From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> on 2001/07/03 11:17 Please respond to John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> cc: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, Takeshi Imamura/Japan/IBM@IBMJP, Hiroshi Maruyama/Japan/IBM@IBMJP, xml-encryption@w3.org Subject: Re: Decryption Transform Joseph M. Reagle Jr. scripsit: > /+(Alice's signature over Bob's encrypted data does not mean she signs its > clear text equivalent; as Alice only "signs what she sees", she signs the > encrypted data and nothing more.)+/ But now we are back where we started, with Alice taking the role of sucker, signing what she doesn't understand. I am arguing that the whole verify-decrypt-verify scenario is bad practice: it comes about only if people sign encrypted material, *which they should never do*. We may need it nonetheless to compensate for pre-existing bad practice. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 11:24:57 UTC