-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:53 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
The basic question is simply this: is it sufficient to list the key
algorithm in the header? I don't see a plausible attack, so I'm okay
with that. But let's at least have the debate based on facts.
It is in fact sufficient to list the key algorithm in the header.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the DNS contained an
undifferentiated bag of bits. There is no plausible attack against
that. You can't lie to someone and get them to get a false positive.
Or to phrase that another way, if you could do it, then there's a Best
Paper award waiting for you at the next CRYPTO and you'll be
catapulted into the limelight for your crypto-fu. It would likely also
be a new fundamental result in core mathematics, as well.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFKKBO3sTedWZOD3gYRAvIEAJ99orMOZe0+TqtzZURA0AiEjvwcigCfa2kw
5POd9A5n9UZQwX9C5q/KEcI=
=4BzO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html