3 ms·

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

• ohazi 13y ago
  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.
  • sweis 13y ago
    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.
    • maaku 13y ago
      ...which is another way of saying they shifted the problem without actually solving it.
    • betterunix 13y ago
      You do not need a single key-issuing service for IBE: http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/wcan06/wcan06s4p3.pdf 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).
  • trippy_biscuits 13y ago
    PGP, Inc., now Symantec, has been selling a product that does exactly this for years.