Skip to main content
Information Security

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

9
  • Related: crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/5455/… Commented Dec 23, 2020 at 13:49
  • Also security.stackexchange.com/questions/143375/… and half a dozen more linked there @mti2935 Commented Dec 24, 2020 at 0:10
  • 1
    Your description isn't quite correct. Each TLS message is not only encrypted but accompanied by a secure message digest. Commented Dec 24, 2020 at 3:14
  • 9
    I'd disagree with the premise that "non-repudiation is really important in communications". Of all the properties that are commonly guaranteed via cryptographic means, non-repudiation seems to be one of the least useful ones. Can you come up with a scenario where this is actually more useful than the confidentiality/authenticity/integrity already provided by SSL? Commented Dec 24, 2020 at 6:33
  • 2
    For some discussion of why non-repudiation may not be desirable, read this posting by Matt Green about how DKIM accidentally provides non-repudiation of email messages, and why that can be a bad thing. Commented Dec 24, 2020 at 20:54