[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: David Scheidt <[email protected]>*Subject*: Re: Proving I'm not Bob.*From*: [email protected]*Date*: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 19:23:31 -0500 (EST)*Cc*: [email protected]*In-Reply-To*: <[email protected]>*Sender*: [email protected]

On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, David Scheidt wrote: > What is this system? I can't think of any system that wouldn't work if > rearranged so that instead of proving you aren't Bob, you simply don't > prove that you are. It is true that they are not isomorphic, and that > could be a problem in some situations, but I don't see this as one of them. Hal and Futplex pretty much described it. I figured a proof of non-identity (if possible) would have saved one hell of a lot of messy authentication in those cases when there is only one possible cheater (due to economic incentives) with many possible pseudonyms (or friends).

**References**:**Re: Proving I'm not Bob.***From:*David Scheidt <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Mandarins, Lifers, and Talents** - Next by Date:
**Re: PKZIP - Encryption** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Proving I'm not Bob.** - Next by thread:
**Re: Proving I'm not Bob.** - Index(es):