Re: Thinking about best-effort encryption

[Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>>>> "Francois" == Francois Audet <audet@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
    Francois> I'm not sure what you mean by "a subset of encryption
    Francois> required", but it's not a sufficient condition.

  yes, I agree.

  It has to be ignored by systems that don't understand it, and it has
to be something that systems that *do* understand can require if they
want to.

    Francois> Both Flemming proposal and Hardriel/François's proposal
    Francois> are backward compatible.

...

    Francois> If it's not backward compatible it is a non-starter
    Francois> because nobody will be stupid enough to deploy a feature
    Francois> that means the phone suddently fails to make calls.

  Agreed.  There is a DOS whereby one party of communication forces
everyone else into the clear, but as long as this fact is well
communicated to all parties, then the conversation will adapt
appropriately.  Probably via jibs against the person who'se
software/firmware is too old.

- -- 
]            Bear: "Me, I'm just the shape of a bear."          |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQEVAwUBRU+HD4CLcPvd0N1lAQL8ugf+OP3+vzqi0iWepZmn+tDqIXVitGc+W8F1
TdzwUhYqZmRYAeZENyZtSke5Eo9Wl9STB+EXlB8SbR7dExIGjwBA+0+Iz+he8ChM
jmVcHZPOMg1CpNAcKcA5WwY7jeWIY0G0eoHvGrdI2ywA86j6qnjIki2QH+sva1QI
PgcAdSp/8v6cxTaW1o2j5tulagYHVbeFETa6f92SnxjSeAhXbBNLcus+Xf6UbHpB
XX6YA3scjzdxNurzjv2gQPyiohY9gN3apkfhP1ZKsjC+RvDfCye1vitgOlb3Qr3C
7tQfJyWIvWZ2XmHpovkt8DxqPqe0uAyt6m8rgszu/sjddyRAXxfvrw==
=zvPv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----