4 ms·
The 1994 paper (freely available at https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1341727/m2/1/high_res_d/10162109.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/6
by g-b-r 11mo ago
The 1994 paper (freely available at https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1341727/m2/1/high_res_d/10162109.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1341727/m2/...) is actually about proper E2EE.
I addressed the other two at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46132220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46132220 .
You did show that the term was already used, but in the current meaning
- calebio 11mo ago> The 1994 paper (freely available at https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1341727/m2/ https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1341727/m2/...) is actually about proper E2EE. That paper is about PKI-based session setup for End-End which is the ancestor of SSL/TLS. It even mentions a CAE which is effectively a CA and it does a synchronous handshake to establish a symmetric key. It's very clearly about transport layer security from end to end. It's not about User-User E2EE (akin to Signal) and shares very little other than that data is encrypted from point A to point B.
- g-b-r 11mo agoTo be clear, SSL/TLS and other transport protocols can absolutely be considered end-to-end encryption, if they're established between the two real interlocutors. Otherwise, you have two instances of encryption with decryption in the middle; that can't logically be called end-to-end encryption, I never heard it called so, and hopefully it never was.