Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:41:35 -0400
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:12:04 +0200, Pieter de Boer said:
Ohwell, signing with public keys is pointless anyhow.. *whistles innocently*
Signing it with the *recipient's* public key can be somewhat interesting, as it results in a signature that only the recipient can identify - if anybody else tries to verify it, they can't, which results in a mostly-repudiatable signature. Of course, the *usual* use case is to either: *encrypt* with the recipients public key (so only their private key can decrypt it), and then sign the whole thing with your private key (so they can verify you did it by using your public key). This results in something that anybody can verify you sent, but only the recipient can read. or... Sign with your private key, then encrypt with their public key - at that point only the recipient can decode it. In addition, only the recipient can see the (now-decoded) signature and verify it.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- selling office 2003 & 2007 0day Sauron (Jul 16)
- Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day lostzero (Jul 16)
- Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day Raj Mathur (Jul 16)
- Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day Pieter de Boer (Jul 16)
- Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 17)
- Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day James Matthews (Jul 17)
- Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day Raj Mathur (Jul 16)
- Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day Joseph Hick (Jul 17)
- Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day lostzero (Jul 16)