On Dec 11, 2:09 pm, sillyban...@gmail.com wrote:.

CryptoDox now has a page -- http://www.cryptodox.com/Why_CryptoDox --
which gives an argument as to a niche that they could fill: it could
provide some information that Wikipedia will not, such as source code
and tutorials (although Wikipedia does have sister projects like
WikiBooks). To date, though, as far as I've seen, the only entries I've
seen on CryptoDox have been Wikipedia-esque encyclopedia articles
started from scratch. That does seem to be reinventing the wheel
somewhat without any obvious benefit.

Obligatory Wikipedia Crypto Project link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cryptography

-- Matt

Christian Siebert wrote:

Yup --- I was familiar with that part.

Thanks! That's Great!!! (well, partly)

I tried the PEM_read_RSAPrivateKey, and everything works: I
can encrypt_public_key and then decrypt_private_key, and it
all works.

Are there any newsgroups or web sites dedicated to storing digital
signatures? I've heard about people publishing signatures of important
documents in newspapers, creating a permanent, independent, dated
record that can be autheticated with some legal standing.

For example, say I author some legal doument and then digitally sign
it (with PGP, for example). I'd then like to register that signature
in some publicly accessible place, but one that maintains a reliable
dating of each record. Posting to a newsgroup, for instance, would be
sufficient on the theory that every post gets a unique ID and a
reliable timestamp. Futhermore, the newsgroup itself has no vested
interest in the content of my document, and only serves to keep a
permanent record of its digital signature (presumably I would supply
a title and some unique ID that's meaningful to me, such as a URL
or network filename).

I assume that sci.crypt is not the kind of place for this, but assuming
a reasonable volume of, say, a few thousand posts per day, a newsgroup
would be ideal for this purpose, and it has the nice benefit of being
free.

Does anyone know of such a place?

Simon Johnson gmail.com> wrote:

This is problematic. The point of BBS is provable security. The point
of making N unknown is to have it small, but then any provable security
is lost. It also begs the question, why a special modulus, why not just
a random number? Also, I somehow doubt that one squaring per bit is very
efficient compared to modern stream ciphers.

A slow generator without a security proof seems pointless, right?

athur-luobo@163.com wrote:

Look up "SSL"

Simon Johnson wrote:

These two papers will help. The authors discuss the what and why's.

http://dsns.csie.nctu.edu.tw/research/crypto/HTML/PDF/C82/61.PDF
http://crypto.junod.info/bbs.pdf

They were not hard to find.