In article <[log in to unmask]>, Dr Alan Hassey
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>To those of you who can't decypher PGP - you can still be certain of
>the authenticity of this note because I've signed it with my public
>key.
Two different things of great importance - (1) digital signing
which can be of 'clear text' message that anyone can read
(2) encryption which
means that only selected recipient(s) can decypher message.
Encrypted messages can also be signed.
With PGP even the originator cannot decrypt the message once it has been
encrypted (unless he / she is included as a recipient). So once it's
sent - that's it! I can't change it or deny it
GP Provider Links project has a potential 'Secure EDIFACT' solution
which should provide both encryption AND digital authentication. But
IMG is dithering. Seems to think that complex key management and Red
Pike encryption is the priority for piloting. Why should that be?
Anyone interested can get more details from my web site
http://www.bcsphcsg.demon.co.uk/gppl/gppl.htm
and follow the hyperlinks
--
John Williams, Senior User GP / Provider Links Project
Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: 01483 440928
Mobile: 0374754302
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|