Subject: Forward Secrecy

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:16:03 +0000

This I-D has been through WG last call back in 2001 or so. At that 
point, something went wrong and it got sat on. Unfortunately, I didn't 
have time before the deadline to convert it to the new format, but it 
now is, and I'd like to try to introduce it as a work item for the WG. 
I'll send it to the I-D editor, but in the meantime, its available here:

http://www.links.org/dnssec/draft-brown-pgp-pfs-04.html
http://www.links.org/dnssec/draft-brown-pgp-pfs-04.txt

Forward Secrecy Extensions for OpenPGP

"The confidentiality of encrypted data depends on the secrecy of the key 
needed to decrypt it. If one key is able to decrypt large quantities of 
data, its compromise will be disastrous. This memo describes three 
methods for limiting this vulnerability for OpenPGP messages: reducing 
the lifetime of confidentiality keys; one-time keys; and the additional 
use of lower-layer security services."

Comments, please!

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:59:26 -0800

I think this is a great idea and ought to be part of the WG's scope. 
I'd even like to see some of the OTR work brought in here.

I don't see why this shouldn't just get a good buffing and go.

	Jon

---

From: Ian G <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:52:39 +0000

> I don't see why this shouldn't just get a good buffing and go.

As long as it doesn't hold up the draft, that
would be fine!  How about we set a deadline
on the draft, and go to the next step on it?

iang

-- 
News and views on what matters in finance+crypto:
        http://financialcryptography.com/

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:59:10 +0000

> on the draft, and go to the next step on it?

It is an independent I-D.