Talk:Secure channel
None listed. |
 | The contents of the Insecure channel page were merged into Secure channel on 2021-03-26. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see Error: Invalid time. its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Betwixt
editMatt, Just noticed one of your edits. Indeed, betwixt is a nice word, but I use it for a specific reason, not because it's nice. I use it deliberately in the AE I perforce write as a levitous note. It's BE and sounds just slightly odd to the AE ear, and thus it provides some relief from the subject under discussion. Perhaps it has a different effect to the BE ear? Please enlighten me. ww 19:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Disputed
edit- Researchers have proposed, and actually demonstrated in real circumstances quantum cryptography in order to create a secure channel. There is at least one commercial company offering a product embodying it. [dubious – discuss]
Which company? - 203.35.154.254 03:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Quantum cryptography says, "Recently, a company called MagiQ has begun offering for sale what they call the first commercially available products to employ Quantum Key Exchange. Each key channel requires a dedicated optical fiber; the data may travel over any available network connection." — I had a look at their website, and they do indeed tout themselves as "presenting the first commercial quantum cryptography solutions" [1]. — Matt Crypto 07:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pigeon chow?
editHuh? --I am not good at running 04:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, me too. I've removed it. — Matt Crypto 13:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, this morning I just remembered: RFC1149. Could that have been what it was referring to? --I am not good at running 18:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Gent: It was mine. It was an attempt at lightening the discussion, not a reference to RFC 1149, though I suppose it could be cited as an almost archaeological antecendent. It thought it a pleasant occasion for a smile. Sorry to see there are so many Botox'd folk around. ... ww 20:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, this morning I just remembered: RFC1149. Could that have been what it was referring to? --I am not good at running 18:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A secure channel example
editI am working on a cryptographic text that covers something I think is missing both on Wikipedia and in most crypto books. A text that briefly explains which steps one does in which order when encrypting a message (creating a secure channel). That is, make/exchange IVs, perhaps compress the message, MAC the message, encrypt the message etc. Matt Crypto suggested I should put it as a subsection under Secure channel and I think that is a splendid idea. Since it is only a very rough draft I have put it under my user page for now: User:Davidgothberg/Crypto_steps I would love to get some help to brush it up to an acceptable level before I add it to the article. --David Göthberg 19:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)