On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Edward R. Figueroa wrote:
I'm a new Cyberpunk! Probably wearing a set of Ono-Sendai eyeballs....
Last, I would like to know once and for all, is PGP compromised, is there a back door, and have we been fooled by NSA to believe it's secure?
You can read and compile the source code yourself. You can learn crypto to help you understand the strength of the algorithms. I'd recommend Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography". You can look for bugs and subtle design flaws along with other people. There are un-subtle design flaws, like the DOSoid user interface :-), and there are philosophical arguments about whether an identity-based Web of Trust is the right trust model, and practical problems about how to support revocation correctly, but basically it's Pretty Good Privacy. On the other hand, there are other threats to think about. Is there a virus, software bug, or trojan horse that captures the keystrokes you type into your computer? If your passphrase is stolen, you lose. PGP can't tell; it's just software. What's on that yellow sticky note? Is the NSA listening for electronic signals from that dark van parked out in front of your house? They're pretty good these days. Your computer doesn't know, so PGP can't help you with it. Are you using PGP to keep business records (like that second set of books) which can be subpoenaed by a court? When the IRS seizes your computer and sees all those files with ------BEGIN PGP----- on them, can they force you to reveal the keys or at least the contents? PGP can't solve those problems for you. But it can keep amateurs like your local police department from reading the files you really care about until they haul you in front of a court where you can bring a lawyer. There are applications that PGP doesn't do, like keeping the blocks on your disk drive automagically encrypted - it just does things to files when you tell it to. But you can at least encrypt the critical stuff, and you can encrypt your email messages and other sensitive files you transmit across a network. Won't do any good for IRC... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk
stewarts@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Edward R. Figueroa wrote:
I'm a new Cyberpunk! Probably wearing a set of Ono-Sendai eyeballs.... Last, I would like to know once and for all, is PGP compromised, is there a back door, and have we been fooled by NSA to believe it's secure?
You can read and compile the source code yourself.
[snip, snip] Really? All 60,000 or so lines, including all 'includes' or attachments? I'll bet you can't find 10 out of 1,000 users who have read the total source, let alone comprehended and validated it.
Dale Thorn wrote: | stewarts@ix.netcom.com wrote: | > >> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Edward R. Figueroa wrote: | > >> > Last, I would like to know once and for all, is PGP compromised, is | > >> > there a back door, and have we been fooled by NSA to believe | > >> > it's secure? | > You can read and compile the source code yourself. | Really? All 60,000 or so lines, including all 'includes' or attachments? | | I'll bet you can't find 10 out of 1,000 users who have read the total source, | let alone comprehended and validated it. The fact that most readers have not examined it does not mean that the availability of the source is not important. If the source was tightly held, perhaps some experts would have seen it. Thats not likely, security experts are in high demand today, with companies paying a lot for their time. Phil could not have competed. In addition, up and coming experts, curious amatuers, and students couldn't have looked at it. Having your protocol open to wide review is a good thing even if few people take advantage of it, because you may hire the wrong experts. The experts you hire may miss something. Someone may have a new attack under development, and not be able to try it against your software. The multitude of hackers who ported pgp also contributed a large stack of bug reports and fixes. Without source availablity, the mac, os/2, amiga & UNIX ports would be held up, or perhaps not exist. Publicly distributed source code also tends to be of higher quality (see Fuzz Revisited, at grilled.cs.wisc.edu) In short, if you're paranoid, feel free to look over the source. But the fact that most people have never peeked under the hood is not a strike against pgp at all. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
On Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:41:06 -0500 (EST) Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org> writes:
Dale Thorn wrote: | stewarts@ix.netcom.com wrote: | > >> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Edward R. Figueroa wrote: | > >> > Last, I would like to know once and for all, is PGP compromised, is | > >> > there a back door, and have we been fooled by NSA to believe | > >> > it's secure? | > You can read and compile the source code yourself.
| Really? All 60,000 or so lines, including all 'includes' or attachments? | | I'll bet you can't find 10 out of 1,000 users who have read the total source, | let alone comprehended and validated it.
The fact that most readers have not examined it does not mean that the availability of the source is not important. If the source was tightly held, perhaps some experts would have seen it. Thats not likely, security experts are in high demand today, with companies paying a lot for their time. Phil could not have competed.
In addition, up and coming experts, curious amatuers, and students couldn't have looked at it. Having your protocol open to wide review is a good thing even if few people take advantage of it, because you may hire the wrong experts. The experts you hire may miss something. Someone may have a new attack under development, and not be able to try it against your software.
The multitude of hackers who ported pgp also contributed a large stack of bug reports and fixes. Without source availablity, the mac, os/2, amiga & UNIX ports would be held up, or perhaps not exist.
Publicly distributed source code also tends to be of higher quality (see Fuzz Revisited, at grilled.cs.wisc.edu)
In short, if you're paranoid, feel free to look over the source. But the fact that most people have never peeked under the hood is not a strike against pgp at all.
-- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
Maybe you missed my point, or I miss-communicated. My question is as follows: If PGP and DES are as secure as thought to be, then why is it not ruled illegal software, just as they do with silencers, narcotics, certain type weapons, etc..... My opinion is "NOT A PARANOID VIEW, BUT RATHER A REALITY". I find it impossible that software that could be a National Security Threat, being shared by the masses! I believe either people are nieve, or ignorant of the capability of the NSA. If there are "back-doors to the algorithms, you can bet your life you and no one else will find out. The conceivability that encryption on the Net is safe, is ludicrous! Just my thoughts, and not paranoia. Ed
Adam Shostack wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote: | stewarts@ix.netcom.com wrote: | > >> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Edward R. Figueroa wrote: | > >> > Last, I would like to know once and for all, is PGP compromised, is | > >> > there a back door, and have we been fooled by NSA to believe it's secure?
| > You can read and compile the source code yourself.
| Really? All 60,000 or so lines, including all 'includes' or attachments? | I'll bet you can't find 10 out of 1,000 users who have read the total source, | let alone comprehended and validated it.
[snip]
In short, if you're paranoid, feel free to look over the source. But the fact that most people have never peeked under the hood is not a strike against pgp at all.
The quip about peeking under the hood may apply OK to an automobile, but to a program which encrypts? Granted that most messages (99+ % ??), if read by NSA et al, won't put the sender in any great danger, but when the application is really serious, as it always is sooner or later, you must realize that people could be taking great risks with PGP encryption, and "pretty sure" isn't good enough when it's really, really vital to have bulletproof security.
Dale Thorn wrote: | Adam Shostack wrote: | > Dale Thorn wrote: | > | stewarts@ix.netcom.com wrote: | > | > >> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Edward R. Figueroa wrote: | > | > >> > Last, I would like to know once and for all, is PGP compromised, is | > | > >> > there a back door, and have we been fooled by NSA to believe it's secure? | | > | > You can read and compile the source code yourself. | | > | Really? All 60,000 or so lines, including all 'includes' or attachments? | > | I'll bet you can't find 10 out of 1,000 users who have read the total source, | > | let alone comprehended and validated it. | | [snip] | | > In short, if you're paranoid, feel free to look over the source. But the fact that | > most people have never peeked under the hood is not a strike against pgp at all. | | The quip about peeking under the hood may apply OK to an automobile, but to a program | which encrypts? Granted that most messages (99+ % ??), if read by NSA et al, won't | put the sender in any great danger, but when the application is really serious, as it | always is sooner or later, you must realize that people could be taking great risks | with PGP encryption, and "pretty sure" isn't good enough when it's really, really | vital to have bulletproof security. You're wrong. People can make their own choices about what level of risk they're willing to accept. That they make bad choices is not my problem, except when they're paying for my opinion. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
Adam Shostack wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote: | Adam Shostack wrote: | > Dale Thorn wrote: | > | stewarts@ix.netcom.com wrote: | > | > >> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Edward R. Figueroa wrote:
| The quip about peeking under the hood may apply OK to an automobile, but to a program | which encrypts? Granted that most messages (99+ % ??), if read by NSA et al, won't | put the sender in any great danger, but when the application is really serious, as it | always is sooner or later, you must realize that people could be taking great risks | with PGP encryption, and "pretty sure" isn't good enough when it's really, really | vital to have bulletproof security.
You're wrong. People can make their own choices about what level of risk they're willing to accept. That they make bad choices is not my problem, except when they're paying for my opinion.
It's easy to say, but when the "shit comes down" as they say, the average user is going to swear they had assurance PGP was absolutely secure, etc....
Dale Thorn wrote: |Adam Shostack wrote: |put the sender in any great danger, but when the application is really serious, as it |always is sooner or later, you must realize that people could be taking great risks |with PGP encryption, and "pretty sure" isn't good enough when it's really, really | vital to have bulletproof security.
If it is vital to have bulletproof security, then they will: 1) learn Cryptography and C well enough to read the code themselves. 2) hire an expert to do 1). 3) Do the research and purchase a commercial package that has guarentees and recommendations.
You're wrong. People can make their own choices about what level of risk they're willing to accept. That they make bad choices is not my problem, except when they're paying for my opinion.
It's easy to say, but when the "shit comes down" as they say, the average user is going to swear they had assurance PGP was absolutely secure, etc....
If you believe that _anything_ is absolutely secure, you get what you diserve. It would seem far far cheaper to simply insert a couple extra chips in the form of a tap in your keyboard to trap all of your keystrokes & forward them via radio signals, or to rubber hose you. PGP has been looked over by lots of people, so I trust it not to have any deliberate holes. As to bugs, or accidental errors, well, it is "freeware, you get what you pay for. Sometimes you get more, and I am not denegrating PGP, but if you don't pay for it you shouldn't even expect it to keep working, much less be bug free. This comes from someone whose main computer rarely runs commercial software (hey, free games just aren't as cool as the commercial ones). Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
stewarts@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Edward R. Figueroa wrote: [snip] You can read and compile the source code yourself.
[snip, snip]
Really? All 60,000 or so lines, including all 'includes' or attachments?
I'll bet you can't find 10 out of 1,000 users who have read the total source, let alone comprehended and validated it.
the point is that the source code is available and public. I may not be able to find any errors or hiddens trapdoors in it, but I have greater trust in it because many other people can read it and make public comments about it. the advantage of a published (public) work is that even those of us who are not experts can gain the advantage of having the work reviewed openly by anyone who is so inclined. -- to unsubscribe from the cypherpunks mailing list, send to majordomo@toad.com a message that states: unsubscribe cypherpunks in the message body, not the subject line. This is the preferred method. You may also try the Vulis method, but it irritates so many people.
From: "P. J. Ponder" <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>
the point is that the source code is available and public. I may not be able to find any errors or hiddens trapdoors in it, but I have greater trust in it because many other people can read it and make public comments about it. the advantage of a published (public) work is that even those of us who are not experts can gain the advantage of having the work reviewed openly by anyone who is so inclined.
People would do well to remember this. In the future software released by PGP Inc. will not come with source code. I don't believe source to PGPfone will ever be released, for instance. Beware of this software. Despite Zimmerman's strong privacy record, you should never, ever, use crypto software that doesn't come with source. Period.
participants (7)
-
Adam Shostack -
Dale Thorn -
kb4vwa＠juno.com -
nobody＠cypherpunks.ca -
P. J. Ponder -
snow -
stewarts＠ix.netcom.com