Citizendium - a community developing a quality, comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free.
Click here to join and contribute
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report


From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A technique that allows two parties to safely establish a shared secret for use as a cryptographic key, even if someone is eavesdropping on their interaction. It requires that the parties have some means of authentication to be sure they are talking to the right person. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Mathematics, Computers and Military [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  Security
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified


Be sure to that all definitions on which this depends, but not necessarily those used as examples, defined. When citing RFCs, first, be sure you have the most current version defined in While the underlying MediaWiki software will recognize and create links to RFCs, I find it useful to have a full link as I substituted, so they will show up, in full, under references.

Some implementations and examples would be helpful; graphics ideally should illustrate at Approved level. For something to have gotten even to IETF Proposed Standard, there must be implementations.

The level of prose is a difficult call. We want to be more fluid than a classic formal encyclopedia, but too much second-person text sometimes makes it hard to follow antecedents. Also (general comment) be sure the issue is generally accepted before using "we".

I haven't gotten down a copy of Schneier or other common texts, but it is well to supplement RFCs. We still need definitions of things like X.509.

Howard C. Berkowitz 11:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please revert

I deleted the citation of RFC 5282, thinking it was not relevant. On double-checking, I find it is, but I do not know how to revert my own change. Does that take an editor? Sandy Harris 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)