Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why not simply make the cryptographically secure service opt-in?


This is the real reason why cryptography hasn't caught on. It's opt-in by nature - No matter how hard you try, you can't send someone an encrypted message if they don't have a public key for you to use.


Actually, yes you can. Check out identity-based encryption and Voltage Security. It's currently in use by Wells Fargo, ADP, and other large enterprise customers.

The catch there is that IBE requires a centralized, trusted key-issuing service where you need to enroll to receive your message. If that's compromised, then game over.


You do not need a single key-issuing service for IBE:

http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/wcan06/wcan06s4p3.pdf

Of course, you would need to be judicious about which group of key issuers you are willing to trust, but this method will at least reduce the risk. The other nice thing about this is that even if some key issuing service is compromised, the sender can force the receiver to switch services (compare to the TLS model, where dropping a CA is basically a coordination game problem).


...which is another way of saying they shifted the problem without actually solving it.


PGP, Inc., now Symantec, has been selling a product that does exactly this for years.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: