Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
Crypto Archives: Re: Electronic envelopes

Re: Electronic envelopes

Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shent-online.de)
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:46:18 +0200

jeromepsti.com wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 10:06:05AM +0200, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> >
> > This also answers Jerome's follow-up, I presume. As to the 'oblivious
> > key escrow' described in Anonymous' post, the obvious problem I can
> > see is how can a part of the unknown volunteers (who are able to
> > sabotage the scheme) be trusted.
> you don't have to trust them individually, you have to trust them
> globally. let me explain
> - they ignore the nature of the document so they can't estimate
> the ratio profit/risk and so decide if it is profitable to be corrumpted.
> - if they decide to communicate with the notaries, they have to advertize
> their corruption which is supposed to be illegal.
> what you need to trust is that the corrumption isnt generalized.
> so if the third party want to contact the notary owning the document, it
> has to contact all the notaries. if at least one of them isnt corrupted,
> it will denounce the corruption.
> it is much harder to corrupt all notaries than only one.

I suppose you are discussing Anonymous' post and not your own. Now if
any (sub)set of the unknown people could construct the key, they
could simply post it just for fun and the scheme is sabotaged, isn't
it? I don't see in this case why any notary has to be contacted.
I don't know literatures on the 'oblivious key escrow', so I don't
exclude that I misunderstood something here.

M. K. Shen

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Sep 27 1999 - 14:30:27 CDT