pem-dev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New Version of TechMail-PEM available

1993-12-07 14:20:00

Word of caution:

The "tuning knob" is a great tool for flexibility.  However, are you
going to implement it on a message-by-message basis?  It is likely
that I would like to decide the "finiky"-ness of each message
independently.

But, if I had to be concious enough to turn the knob for every message
I get,  I might as well read all the messages displayed by the
signature verification software and determine if I accept that
message.  This may be a problem for ordinary users. 

Certainly I want my software to display the message even if the
signature is invalid.  Maybe I want to laugh at what the intruder has
written (thinking that I will believe it)!  i.e. the software that has
the tuning knob at a very tight position is not good.

_______________________________________________________________________
Alireza Bahreman                          E-Mail: 
bahreman(_at_)bellcore(_dot_)com
Bellcore, Room RRC-1K221                  Phone : +1 908 699 7398
444 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854       Fax   : +1 908 336 2943


You write:

This has led me to believe that we need a tuning knob on the PEM verificatio
n
rules. In this fashion we can give the end users control over how finiky the
y
wish to be. Levels of the (digital) know might be:

1) All certificates and CRLs are required.
2) CRLs are required but may be obsolete.
3) No CRLs are required.
3a) CRL required from first level CA but not from higher levels in
    hierarchy.
4) CA certificates can be obsolete (and PCAs as well)
5) User certificates can be obsolete
6) Anything is ok (PEM becomes a no-op) or a printf("All OK");


Jeff  - 

I like this idea. In fact, I like it a lot. In trying to get PEM as 
widely accepted as possible, I think some leeway should be given for 
users with differing privacy/security requirements. Plus, as mail-based 
applications begin to transition into PEM-based applications, this would 
appear to be a useful functionality.

This idea seems to be a compromise between users who need to be absolutely 
sure of the identity of the message (i.e. a message from a boss to an 
employee telling them to do something), and users who are less concerned 
with a CRL's current validity (i.e. two employees who sit down the hall 
from each other carrying on a private conversation about a new product). 

- Anish

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anish Bhimani                                  
anish(_at_)ctt(_dot_)bellcore(_dot_)com        
Enterprise Network Integrity                   (908) 699-5571 (phone)
Bellcore                                       (908) 336-2732 (fax)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>