IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why are mail servers not also key servers?

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 21 April 2017 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2451294C8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zs3UwpEfZx4r for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (w6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B2001294A8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10835 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2017 14:31:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2017 14:31:34 -0000
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:31:12 -0000
Message-ID: <20170421143112.28055.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Why are mail servers not also key servers?
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVmJf66ZJLToFm9_o34P3FswezVRFguuFrgMJeQv_TMgg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/16O0YZfmlgQs9HYpTEbeAo_y7Iw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:31:37 -0000

In article <CABkgnnVmJf66ZJLToFm9_o34P3FswezVRFguuFrgMJeQv_TMgg@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>On 21 April 2017 at 12:11, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>> If a recipient is cooperative, and sends you back a message signed
>> with the same key to which you encrypted the message, that tells you
>> he got it, but that's not a very interesting case.
>
>It's also abuse of the cryptographic primitives, I hope that this
>isn't really how it works and you are eliding certain key details.

It doesn't use the same session key, it uses the same public key.  It's
not obvious to me why that would be wrong.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email