RE: [dss] EU Directive versus ABA "digest signatures"

["Mark West \(OPSIT\)" <markwes@microsoft.com>]

I just started getting mail from this list today, so forgive me if I am
taking this thread out of context, but the gist seems to be that of
implementing a cryptographically secure database.

We (I) have built such a system for internal use here at Microsoft.
Issues of secrecy, integrity and non-repudiation were all solved, and I
did use a non-addressable crypto module. 

- Mark West
- Microsoft Corporation


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

>I personally concur with the following point being made by John
Messing:
>
>"The issue to my way of thinking is primarily one of security.
>Unencrypted hashes and audit records of authentication in a database
>require heightened database security to prevent alteration of the
>records, while encrypted hashes or digital signatures can take up a
>part of the security burden by virtue of protections provided to the
>private key"
>
>In addition an encrypted hash can be done by a relatively small bit of
>trusted code and done by a tamper proof hardware module (for example a
>FIP140-3 device.  Hence by using encrypted hash it is simple for
>independent third parties to verify evidence.