non repudiation n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Non-repudiation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Non-repudiation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 45

Non-repudiation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 105 Views
  • Uploaded on

Non-repudiation. Robin Burke ECT 582. Midterm scores. Ave: 69 Std. dev: 23 Median: 75 Max: 100 Min: 35. Approximate grade. Mid 80s and up: As High 60s and to mid80s: Bs 50s to 60s: Cs 40s: Ds. Midterm. Answers. Law and Business. Legal systems make business possible

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Non-repudiation' - kirk


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
non repudiation

Non-repudiation

Robin Burke

ECT 582

midterm scores
Midterm scores
  • Ave: 69
  • Std. dev: 23
  • Median: 75
  • Max: 100
  • Min: 35
approximate grade
Approximate grade
  • Mid 80s and up: As
  • High 60s and to mid80s: Bs
  • 50s to 60s: Cs
  • 40s: Ds
midterm
Midterm
  • Answers
law and business
Law and Business
  • Legal systems make business possible
    • (sorry libertarians)
  • Law establishes
    • conditions for contract validity
    • venues for disinterested mediation and dispute resolution
    • remedies for breach of contract
    • mechanisms of enforcement
law and e commerce
Law and E-Commerce
  • E-Commerce also needs legal systems
  • Complexities
    • global scope / jurisdiction
    • evolving technology landscape
    • automation / liability
evidence
Evidence
  • Legal systems require evidence
    • evidentiary statutes predate digital era
    • slowly catching up
  • Non-repudiation
    • maintaining digital evidence for e-commerce transactions
legal structures
Legal structures
  • Common law
    • long-established precedents in US and UK
  • Concepts
    • writing
    • signing
    • notary
    • competence
    • presence
    • negotiability
problems for e commerce
Problems for e-commerce
  • Is a digital contract "written"?
    • digital media impermanent
  • Is a digital signature a "signature"?
    • must be qualified with respect to key purpose, policy, etc.
  • Who bears liability?
    • private key compromise
    • service disruption
  • Who will archive and how?
    • digital media volatile
    • archives must be secure
example
Example
  • Financial services law
    • banks must retain canceled checks
      • or facsimiles thereof (microfilm)
    • pre-dates digital era
  • If we define "digital representation"
    • as equivalent to physical facsimile
    • then banks can store electronic scans of canceled checks
example1
Example
  • Jurisdiction
    • location where suit can be brought
    • party must have "minimum contacts" with a jurisdiction to be summoned there
      • US Constitutional law
  • Does the availability of web site constitute "minimum contacts"?
legal framework us federal
Legal frameworkUS Federal
  • Federal law
    • Federal E-Sign act
    • provisions
      • Technology-neutral
      • Electronic signatures have same status as written ones
      • limits
        • applies mostly to sale and lease contracts, will, trusts and other transactions explicitly excluded)
legal framework us state law
Legal FrameworkUS State Law
  • Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
    • More specific than Federal law
    • Enacted by 43 states
    • Still technology-neutral
      • Doesn't mention certificates, PKI, etc.
  • Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
    • Extremely controversial
    • Enacted by 3 states: Maryland, Virginia, Iowa
    • Major concern
      • imposition of onerous license terms: self-help, reverse engineering, prevention of archiving, fair-use, etc.
ueta provisions
UETA Provisions
  • Electronic Signature
    • "an electronic sound, symbol. or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record."
  • Effect of Electronic Signature: A
    • "signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.""If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law."
  • Electronic Record
    • "Means a record created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means."
  • Effect of Electronic Record
    • A record "may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form."
    • If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law."
    • A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation."
  • Effect of Electronic Agents
    • "The actions of machines ("electronic agents") programmed and used by people will bind the user of the machine, regardless of whether human review of a particular transaction has occurred."
digital signature law
Digital Signature Law
  • Utah Digital Signature Act (1995)
    • Very specific
      • Mentions public key cryptography, certificates, CRLs, etc.
      • Licensing and regulation of CAs
      • Liabilities of users and CAs
    • Not widely emulated
  • "Digital Signature Guidelines" (1999)
    • American Bar Association
    • Guidelines for the deployment of PKI
      • Expectations and liability associated with CAs, RAs, and users
international laws
International Laws
  • UN Model Law on Electronic Commerce
    • similar to UETA
  • EU Directive on Digital Signatures
    • similar to Utah law
    • specific requirements for PKI
state of law
State of law
  • Complex and unsettled
    • Different laws in different states / countries
  • Catch-22
    • Slow adoption of PKI is tied to legal uncertainties
    • Lack of legal precedents / guidelines due to slow adoption
non repudiation1
Non-repudiation
  • System property
  • Protocol
    • provides for the retention of evidence
    • that can be used to resolve disputes
    • regarding transactions
non repudiation2
Non-repudiation
  • Strong and substantial evidence of the identity of the signer of a message and of message integrity, sufficient to prevent a party from successfully denying the origin, submission or delivery of the message and the integrityof its contents.
  • ABA Digital Signature Guidelines
disputes
Disputes
  • "I never said that."
    • origin
  • "I never got your message."
    • reception
  • "Check's in the mail."
    • submission
types needed
Types needed
  • Non-repudiation of origin
    • NRO
  • Non-repudiation of delivery
    • NRD
  • Non-repudiation of submission
    • NRS
non repudiation of origin
Non-repudiation of Origin
  • Evidence needed
    • Identity of originator
    • Contents of message
    • Time of generation
      • this may matter for establishing a negotiation sequence
  • Techniques
    • two party
    • three party
originator digital signature
Originator Digital Signature
  • Alice
    • creates message M
    • dates it T
    • and signs it S
  • Alice sends M + T + S to Bob
  • Bob uses Alice's public key certificate to verify signature
  • Bob archives
    • M + T + S
    • Alice's public key certificate and CRL used to verify it
features
Features
  • Identity and contents are protected
  • Timestamping depends on the accuracy of Alice's clock
  • Alice needs digital signature capability
ttp signature
TTP Signature
  • Trusted third-party (Vicky)
  • Receives Alice's transaction M
    • message
  • Generates time stamp T
  • Signs M + T
    • creating S'
  • Returns to Alice
  • Bob gets M + T + S'
    • can verify that whole transaction matches S'
    • archives the message for dispute resolution
    • also Vicky's certificate and CRL used to verify it
features1
Features
  • Alice doesn't need to sign
    • she can review message before sending
    • Alice doesn't need a key pair
      • lower PKI overhead
  • Timestamp
    • Vicky's timestamp will be more reliable than Alice's
  • Identity less secure
    • no digital signature from Alice
  • Vicky has access to message contents
ttp digest signature
TTP Digest Signature
  • Alice doesn't want to disclose M
  • Same operation with hash of M using key k
    • creates hash H
  • Sends H to Vicky
    • gets back H + T + S'
  • Attaches M
    • encrypts M + k + H + T + S'
  • Bob receives message
    • verifies that H is a true hash of M
    • verifies Vicky's signature
    • archives the transaction
features2
Features
  • Alice needs encryption / hashing capability
  • Confidentiality is preserved
  • Identity still a problem
in line ttp
In-line TTP
  • Receives Alice's transaction M
    • message
  • Generates time stamp T
    • Signs M + T
    • creating S'
  • Archives M + T + S'
  • Forwards M to Bob
    • perhaps with transaction id
  • Bob can contact Vicky to get evidence
features3
Features
  • Vicky does archiving
  • Alice and Bob don't need encryption capability
  • Content and identity guarantees
ttp token
TTP Token
  • Receives Alice's transaction M
  • Generates time stamp T
  • Creates a secure hash H of M + T using a cryptographic key k
  • Returns to Alice M + T + H
  • Bob gets M + T + H
    • Bob can contact Vicky with H
    • Vicky verifies that H matches message
features4
Features
  • Content secure
  • No PKI
    • Ordinary symmetric encryption sufficient
  • Identity less secure
combination of methods
Combination of methods
  • Originator Signature + TTP Digest Signature
    • if we care about disclosure
    • and recipient can archive
  • Originator Signature + In-line TTP
    • if we don't care about disclosure
    • and we want 3rd party archiving
  • In-line TTP could
    • archive encrypted message
    • Bob would need private key to access evidence
non repudiation of delivery
Non-repudiation of delivery
  • Same information needed
    • Identity of recipient
    • Content of message
    • Timestamp
  • Think of NRO
    • but the origin message is the acknowledgement of receipt
signed receipt
Signed receipt
  • Alice sends Bob M
  • Bob
    • generates a timestamp T
    • computes a hash of M = H
    • signs H + T = S'
    • sends Alice a receipt message H + T + S'
  • Alice
    • checks H against her original message
    • validates Bob's signature
    • archives the receipt message
features5
Features
  • Like digital signature NRO, but in reverse
    • message = acknowledgement
  • Standardized part of S/MIME
    • secure receipt of email
    • available in MS Outlook
  • Other variants
    • TTP Signature, In-Line etc.
      • all the same options available
problem
Problem
  • Requires that the recipient generate the receipt
  • What about the "reluctant recipient"?
    • reason for NRD in the first place
trusted delivery agent
Trusted Delivery Agent
  • Alice sends message of Vicky
  • Bob must contact Vicky to access message
    • Vicky generates receipt
non repudiation of submission
Non-repudiation of submission
  • Useful when what matters is submitting something
    • a bid
    • acceptance
  • Like NDD
    • but with the mail system
      • or the bidding engine
    • doing the verification
basic idea
Basic idea
  • Parties agree to non-repudiation mechanism
  • Evidence is generated during transaction
  • Evidence is transmitted
  • Evidence is verified
  • Evidence is archived
  • If necessary
    • Evidence is retrieved
    • Evidence is presented for dispute resolution
digital evidence
Digital evidence
  • Evidence will be strong if
    • secure chain of custody from creation to presentation
    • properties of authenticity and integrity
    • policies of the CA and TTP
secure bidding
Secure bidding
  • Suppose Alice doesn't want Bob to know the contents of her message
    • a bid to be unsealed later
  • Additional safeguards
    • Alice shouldn't be able to change her mind
    • Bob shouldn't be able to read her bid
  • "Commitment protocol"
    • Alice commits to an answer but doesn't reveal it
commitment protocol
Commitment protocol
  • Alice encrypts M with symmetric key k
    • produces ciphertext C
    • generates the transaction based on C
  • Bob gets Alice's bid C
    • he can verify identity and timestamp
    • gets copy of C
  • When bids are revealed
    • Alice transmits k
    • Bid can be read
homework 4
Homework #4
  • Use secure email
    • digital signature
    • encryption
  • Get certificate from www.thawte.com
    • cannot use web mail
    • if necessary, open a new hotmail account
    • Use Outlook Express or Netscape Communicator