Alice, Blake, Chloe and Dharma.

[Pete Stephenson]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:19 AM, sonne <kindaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all. Hello, Mike Ashley
>
> Reading gpg manuals, I wonder why the usual example agents of a
> cryptography-related situation are called in an unusual way.
>
> I notice that in related RFCs the usual Alice and Bob are used, and no
> apparent trace of Chloe or Dharma.

True, but there is a Carol, Charles, Dave, etc. Typically (but not
always) the names aren't just a placeholder for a participant, but the
first letter of the name means something (e.g. "Eve" is an
"eavesdropper" who can see but not modify the data between Alice and
Bob, "Mallory" is a malicious attacker who can perform active attacks,
etc.).

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob> for details.

Bruce Schneier's book "Applied Cryptography" was published in 1996 and
contains reference to several of those names. I'm not sure if that's
the origin of their use in this context, though. Anyone else?

Cheers!
-Pete

-- 
Pete Stephenson