Public Key Cryptography Sample Clauses

Public Key Cryptography. The public key cryptography (PKC) is introduced by Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx [5]. PKC involves two different keys for encryption and decryption instead of sin- gle key as symmetric key system. Since, public key is random string in PKC. Therefore, To prove the relation between entity and its public key, PKC adopts certificate mechanism where certificate-based protocols work by considering that each entity has a public and private key pair. These public keys are authenti- cated via certificate authority (CA) which issue a certificate. When two entities wish to establish a session key, a pair of ephemeral (short term) public keys are exchanged between them. The ephemeral and static keys are then combined in a way so as to obtain the agreed session key. The authenticity of the static keys provided by signature of CA assures that only the entities who posses the static keys are able to compute the session key.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Public Key Cryptography. ‌ In modern cryptography, there’s a difference between symmetric and asymmetric cryp- tosystems. In symmetric cryptography, there is only one secret key used between the sender and the receiver. Thus, the same key is used for both encryption and decryption. Symmetric primitives include block ciphers, stream ciphers, cryptographic hash func- tions, and message authentication codes (MACs). Common to all symmetric cryptosys- tems is that the parties who wish to communicate need some prior secret established before distributing keys. This is usually achieved by establishing a secure channel to a trusted authority (TA) who then issues a common secret key to both parties. In comparison to symmetric-key cryptosystems, the main idea of asymmetric or public key cryptosystems is to make key distribution easier. It is asymmetric in the sense that each party has a key pair, a public key and a private key. Respectively, these are used for encryption and decryption. Although the keys have some cryptographic relation, the public key can be widely distributed without compromising the private key. Thus, any party who wish to communicate with another party can encrypt the message using the recipient’s public key who then can decrypt it using his or her private key. It is also possible to sign data, in which the private key is used for signing and the public key is used for verification. Unlike symmetric-key cryptography, there is no need for having established a secret prior to interaction.

Related to Public Key Cryptography

  • Cryptography Supplier will maintain policies and standards on the use of cryptographic controls that are implemented to protect Accenture Data.

  • Bibliography [Ben83] Xxxxxxx Xxx-Or. Another advantage of free choice (extended ab- stract): Completely asynchronous agreement protocols. In Proceed- ings of the second annual ACM symposium on Principles of distrib- uted computing, pages 27–30. ACM, 1983. [BG89] Xxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxx X Xxxxx. Asymptotically optimal distributed consensus. Springer, 1989. [BGP89] Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxx X. Xxxxx, and Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx. Towards optimal distributed consensus (extended abstract). In 30th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA, 30 October - 1 November 1989, pages 410–415, 1989. [BT85] Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxx Xxxxx. Asynchronous consensus and broadcast protocols. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 32(4):824–840, 1985. [DGM+11] Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, and Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx. Stabilizing Consensus with the Power of Two Choices. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA, June 2011. [DS83] Xxxxx Xxxxx and X. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx. Authenticated algorithms for byzantine agreement. SIAM Journal on Computing, 12(4):656–666, 1983. [FG03] Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx and Xxxx X Xxxxx. Efficient player-optimal protocols for strong and differential consensus. In Proceedings of the twenty- second annual symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 211–220. ACM, 2003.

  • System Logging The system must maintain an automated audit trail which can 20 identify the user or system process which initiates a request for PHI COUNTY discloses to 21 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY, 22 or which alters such PHI. The audit trail must be date and time stamped, must log both successful and 23 failed accesses, must be read only, and must be restricted to authorized users. If such PHI is stored in a 24 database, database logging functionality must be enabled. Audit trail data must be archived for at least 3 25 years after occurrence.

  • Database The LERG is available through Telcordia. ICONN is available through the Qwest web site.

  • Web site Information on registration for and use of the E-Verify program can be obtained via the Internet at the Department of Homeland Security Web site: xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/E-Verify.

  • Programming (a) Pursuant to Section 624 of the Cable Act, the Licensee shall maintain the mix, quality and broad categories of Programming set forth in Exhibit 4, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Pursuant to applicable federal law, all Programming decisions, including the Programming listed in Exhibit 4, attached hereto, shall be at the sole discretion of the Licensee.

  • Mail Order Catalog Warnings In the event that, the Settling Entity prints new catalogs and sells units of the Products via mail order through such catalogs to California consumers or through its customers, the Settling Entity shall provide a warning for each unit of such Product both on the label in accordance with subsection 2.4 above, and in the catalog in a manner that clearly associates the warning with the specific Product being purchased. Any warning provided in a mail order catalog shall be in the same type size or larger than other consumer information conveyed for such Product within the catalog and shall be located on the same display page of the item. The catalog warning may use the Short-Form Warning content described in subsection 2.3(b) if the language provided on the Product label also uses the Short-Form Warning.

  • Fish and Wildlife Service 2002c. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) recovery goals: amendment and supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan.

  • Authoritative Root Database To the extent that ICANN is authorized to set policy with regard to an authoritative root server system (the “Authoritative Root Server System”), ICANN shall use commercially reasonable efforts to (a) ensure that the authoritative root will point to the top-­‐level domain nameservers designated by Registry Operator for the TLD, (b) maintain a stable, secure, and authoritative publicly available database of relevant information about the TLD, in accordance with ICANN publicly available policies and procedures, and (c) coordinate the Authoritative Root Server System so that it is operated and maintained in a stable and secure manner; provided, that ICANN shall not be in breach of this Agreement and ICANN shall have no liability in the event that any third party (including any governmental entity or internet service provider) blocks or restricts access to the TLD in any jurisdiction.

  • Root-­‐zone Information Publication ICANN’s publication of root-­‐zone contact information for the TLD will include Registry Operator and its administrative and technical contacts. Any request to modify the contact information for the Registry Operator must be made in the format specified from time to time by ICANN at xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/domains/root/.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.