Re:New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dreamed of"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would be almost as inclined to think that a company using PGP5.5 with a forced encrypted to (company) self in addition to whomever else ... might even put up a bigger fuss about passing out their 'master key' to Freeh-dumb et al. than many CP individuals ... ... another passing thought, could the anticipated implementation of this have had anything to do with removal of the 'conventional encryption' options in PGP5 ???? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDlREcdZgC62U/gIEQIo/wCg0FfHi8A3a67vYsskAElu5U7C/vkAoLfx 4a/uggNws8ZfGCRNm3UZbo2Q =OGro -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts" John Wooden
Brian Riley
I would be almost as inclined to think that a company using PGP5.5 with a forced encrypted to (company) self in addition to whomever else ... might even put up a bigger fuss about passing out their 'master key' to Freeh-dumb et al. than many CP individuals ...
There already exist a number of procedures for the Feds to extract information from companies. They serve a warrant requesting the key/information, etc. The company hands the information over. Happens all the time.
... another passing thought, could the anticipated implementation of this have had anything to do with removal of the 'conventional encryption' options in PGP5 ????
You could do GAK with conventional encryption too, with a bit of work.
Perhaps they just elected to remove that option rather than do that
bit of work. Conventional encryption doesn't get used that much for
email, though it does see a bit of use with certain parts of type-I
remailer reply blocks.
Adam
--
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0
------------------------
From: "Brian B. Riley"
I would be almost as inclined to think that a company using PGP5.5 with a forced encrypted to (company) self in addition to whomever else ... might even put up a bigger fuss about passing out their 'master key' to Freeh-dumb et al. than many CP individuals ...
An interesting question indeed. This is something that needs to be carefully considered by all concerned especially since, once the LEA has a copy of a private key, there is no way to stop them from using it to decrypt =any= document that was encrypted to it. This is very different from a wiretap, where the court allows the LEA to listen in to conversations over a specific period at a specific location. A closer analogy would be to require all telephone conversations to be recorded, and the wiretap would be used to listen to all these recorded conversations.
... another passing thought, could the anticipated implementation of this have had anything to do with removal of the 'conventional encryption' options in PGP5 ????
Indeed. I just recieved a copy of pgpmail 4.5 that my boss purchased. I'm
supposed to look this over and see how we can implement it. Upon briefly
perusing the documentation, I'd say that I prefer this version to pgp 5x
since it allows conventional cryptography, (with idea rather than DES!) and
also makes it easy to encrypt to a group of people. This functionality is
really what we need it for more than anything else.
=snip=
Kinda makes one go "Hmmmm..."
------------------------
Name: amp
E-mail: amp@pobox.com
Date: 10/07/97
Time: 00:51:00
Visit me at http://www.pobox.com/~amp
==
-export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i
participants (3)
-
Adam Back -
amp＠pobox.com -
Brian B. Riley