[49318] in Cypherpunks
How would an FV attack fail? (was: Re: FV's blatant double standards)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roy M. Silvernail)
Tue Feb 6 01:04:18 1996
To: simsong@vineyard.net (Simson L. Garfinkel)
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 23:37:14 CST
In-Reply-To: <199602060139.UAA03880@vineyard.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In list.cypherpunks, simsong@vineyard.net writes:
> Yes, clearly if you are not concerned about missing 50-75% of First
> Virtual's users, this attack will work just fine.
Could you characterize the failure modes? I see 2 main ones:
Confirmation notices directed to another address invisible to the
successfully infiltrated attacker.
Failure to initially infiltrate:
Infiltration attempt failed.
Potential victim never contacts infection vector.
I'm curious how you'd estimate the breakdown over these modes, and if
you see additional failure modes I've missed.
- --
Roy M. Silvernail -- roy@cybrspc.mn.org will do just fine, thanks.
"Does that not fit in with your plans?"
-- Mr Wiggen, of Ironside and Malone (Monty Python)
PGP public key available upon request (send yours)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMRbrPxvikii9febJAQFxxwP+MjHD4lRb8kMiFF+5DlN4OTZqolyQWlfE
aj2Tk59/FNrOctW4Gqv4b3EkTuLdc1se1CDs/UDQQilmSNiF5cxfJauPVyETQG3H
0NZ5T7wI9WrJp6JVxc4DVwu7aUZwmcDYB6tKPT2ZsH2jhKGz9pUn8kieZt4zM+/7
T0e80OEELvA=
=ZGC2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
