[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] RE: Part 3 CD01 7.2.1 PD1.4 Forbids encryption ofsignatures
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:13 -0600, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > "Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca> wrote on 04/30/2010 > 12:53:47 PM: > > > > > Re: [office] RE: Part 3 CD01 7.2.1 PD1.4 Forbids encryption of > signatures > > > > On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 10:34 -0600, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > It is just defining > > > the behavior for the real-world complexity that already exists. You > can > > > receive an encrypted documented and then want to sign it. > > > > Why would you want to sign an encrypted document? > > > > Andreas > > > It depends on the context. In some cases signing indicates authorship. I > sign what I wrote. In other cases signing denotes approval. I reviewed > the document and I sign it to indicate that I approve it. Whether or not > it is also encrypted is an orthogonal question. Certainly I wouldn't want > to sign something I cannot also decrypt. But I might want to sign > something that only a small number of people can read, like a private > contract. As I sign something I should have been able to encrypt it. So it would be reasonable for me to sign it before I encrypt it, since this shows that I in fact was able to know what I was signing. If I get an encrypted and later signed document, I would assume that the signature was added only to confirm encryption??? Andreas
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]