From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <0c9c01c383a2$b02e70c0$6400a8c0@dell01>
From: "Wes Kussmaul" <wes@village.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0309250945570.3289-100000@einstein.ssz.com> <0ab301c3837f$0acf0310$6400a8c0@dell01> <01a201c3839f$91797240$b9844051@insultant.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] ISP filtering - update
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:22:04 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4c872f0a-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


> > Boyd had the right idea (not the current one (though that one's good
too))
> > but... let's see if I can find it... quoted it in my book...
> >
> >     The final solution is to either beef up IP (bad idea) or replace
> >     it with a mutually authenticaticated, encrypted protocol.
>
> that's it.  thanks.

It really is the right place to start.

Now the trick(s) is (are)

1. Who can you rely on to authenticate identities and enroll people with
meaningful credentials, i.e. key pairs

2. How do you protect individual privacy once people start using these
universal identifiers

3. (ducking) access to key escrow for law enforcement

4. Reality check: who's going to pay for it

Please please please do not start a flame war over #3. We are all way too
busy for that.

Wes Kussmaul