Subject: RE: Signing and Encrypting with the same key?

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:10:12 +0000

Guys,

I just realized that we actually might have evolved as a community.

Someone asked for the true meaning of non-repudiation...... and this e-mail list didn't explode.

Stefan Santesson
Senior Program Manager
Windows Security, Standards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:owner-ietf-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kemp, David P.
> Sent: den 17 november 2008 15:07
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Signing and Encrypting with the same key?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Wilson
> >
> > I'd like to know the precise
> > history of the NR bit in X.509.  Who actually thought of it, were
> they
> > an engineer or a lawyer, and what if any debate went on at the time?
>
> Trust me, you really, REALLY don't want to know :-).
>
> Those on one side of the argument thought that the NR bit set should be
> used for signatures that could be validated indefinitely (i.e. for what
> one normally thinks of as "signing"), and signatures with the NR bit
> clear could be used only for session authentication.  That way a signed
> object created as part of a login session could not be misrepresented
> as a signed document.
>
> Those on the other side thought that the NR bit actually had something
> to do with "repudiating" signatures, which IMHO is a ridiculous idea
> for the reasons you suggest.  Those who believe in the current X.509
> interpretation may defend it if they wish, or spare us the discussion.
>
> Dave