RE: [ebxml-msg] Sign and Encrypt

From
Miller, Robert (GXS) <>
Date
2001-11-05T19:13:05+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [ebxml-msg] Sign and Encrypt
Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] Sign and Encrypt

Dan,

My responses imbedded.

Bob

-----Original Message-----

From: Dan Weinreb [mailto:]

Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 12:23 PM

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Sign and Encrypt

   Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 12:43:23 -0500

   From: "Miller, Robert (GXS)" <>

I agree with David Fischer: almost always, you want to sign and

then encrypt rather than the other way.

MILR: Agreed. "almost always"

   Well now, the 'King' sealed his envelopes with a wax stamp using the ring he

   wore on his hand.

   Having provided some precedence for 'encrypt then sign', 

I don't think this is an example of "encrypt then sign".  It's more

like doing both at once: the sealing wax ensures confidentiality,

integrity, and authenticity, all at once.

MILR: Confidentiality - NOT. The message may be intercepted and opened

      Integrity - NOT. While the king sleeps, his aide gains entry into his

                  bedroom and applies his stamp to the seal

      Auththenticity - Almost - See Integrity

     Encrypt then sign provides an indication of where the message came from,

     and 'freezes' the message content.  It has value for messsge transport.

     Sign then encrypt provides end-to-end C,I,A for the message content.

     Encrypt then sign only provides seal to unseal CIA.  Once the seal is

     broken (the message is decrypted) there is no residual protection, as

     your Bob and Alice scenario below demonstrates.  

Problems with "encrypt then sign" include:

If Alice encrypts-then-signs a message and sends it to Bob, Bob can

decrypt it and verify the signature, but if Bob wants to show it to

Carol, and passes on the original message and cleartext, Carol might

accuse Bob of lying about which letter arrived in which envelope.

With sign-then-encrypt, Bob can decrypt and then give the signed

message to Carol.

MILR: Agreed

With sign-then-encrypt, an adversary can't remove a signature from

the message and add his own.

MILR: Agreed

And if the text to be signed is not visible to the signer (because

it's encrypted), the signature may have little legal force.

MILR: Agreed. Which is why the king should sign the content of the envelope

Reference: "Applied Cryptography" by Bruce Schnier, section

2.7 "Digital Signatures with Encryption".

MILR: Reference: King Henry VIII

-- Dan