Timeline for Can we design a public-key infrastructure without certificate authorities?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2022 at 2:51 | comment | added | dave_thompson_085 | Similar: security.stackexchange.com/questions/30368/… | |
| Jan 15, 2022 at 16:17 | answer | added | oberstet | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 6, 2013 at 23:51 | vote | accept | pg1989 | ||
| Sep 22, 2013 at 20:37 | comment | added | Paŭlo Ebermann | @RickyDemer This is even less relevant for HTTPS, I suppose. | |
| Sep 22, 2013 at 0:17 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCrypto/status/381572857631109120 | ||
| Sep 21, 2013 at 22:41 | comment | added | user991 | @CodesInChaos : $\:$ Another advantage of IBE is that the receiver doesn't need to have $\hspace{.83 in}$ registered before the sender sends the ciphertext. $\;\;\;$ | |
| Sep 21, 2013 at 8:58 | history | edited | user991 |
added pki tag
|
|
| Sep 21, 2013 at 3:49 | answer | added | Maxthon Chan | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 15:35 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | @ddddavidee So you replace a trusted third party by an even more powerful trusted third party. The only advantage of IBE is that you don't need to be connected to the internet to encrypt a message with their private key. That advantage is obviously irrelevant for applications that inherently require internet connectivity. | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 13:08 | answer | added | user8509 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 11:45 | answer | added | NDF1 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 2:21 | comment | added | user991 | One could easily get lots more (so, perhaps not "central") trust authorities if clients did $\hspace{1.02 in}$ "not mind receiving more than one certificate for the" servers. $\:$ | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 20:19 | comment | added | ddddavidee | There is the Identity Based Encryption, where the public key is, say, your email address or your name.surname or your social security number or ... You still need a trusted authority to ship the corresponding private key. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 20:06 | comment | added | Reid | @PaŭloEbermann: That's what I was going to say ... imagine trying to apply the WOT model to, say, Google. All of those people ... I just don't see it working. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 20:01 | comment | added | Paŭlo Ebermann | There is the web of trust concept. But I'm not sure if this would work for HTTPS like it works for email. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 19:44 | history | asked | pg1989 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |