[6710] in Kerberos
Re[2]: done any survey on who uses pub key cryptography?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Murrell)
Tue Feb 20 12:05:25 1996
From: Brian Murrell <murrell@bctel.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 08:41:38 -0800 (PST)
To: imarga@essex.ac.uk
Cc: kerberos@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960220102033.3702H-100000@cscf15>
from the quill of John Margaritsanakis <imarga@essex.ac.uk> on scroll
<Pine.SUN.3.91.960220102033.3702H-100000@cscf15>
> They just couldn't care less! Their age-old excuse ("if somebody
> wants to read my crappy e-mail, let them!") is completely unbeatable by
> the arguments I can present to them. The little extra trouble of typing
> their PGP pass phrases every time they sent out e-mail, or even
> installing the shells for their favourite programs to use cryptography
> (even if they take lots of time to install completely useless stuff,and
> that's to their *knowledge*) is way too much for them.
There is an argument against this. It basically says that if people only
used cryptography for things that were legitimately secret, then the people
trying to do the cracking would know exactly what to work on. Ignore the
non-encrypted mail, snarf the encrypted mail and crack it (not to imply
that's necessarily an easy feat, mind you), it will have something good in
it. However, if everybody encrypted all email, the crackers would spend a
lot of time cracking sweatheart messages, and not necessarily enough time
cracking messages with the goodies in it.
> All in all, I'm just waiting to take a look at the implementation of
> the new version of PGP -- they claim the new module structure will be
> easy to include in already existing software packages.
When, and by whom. MIT release, or the 2.6.3i guys, or somebody else. Any
details anywhere??
b.
--
Brian J. Murrell murrell@bctel.net
BCTel Advanced Communications brian@ilinx.com
Vancouver, B.C. brian@wimsey.com
604 454 5279
