Re: What email encryption is actually in use?
Is it practical for a particular group, for example a corporation or a conspiracy, to whip up its own damned root certificate, without buggering around with verisign? (Of course fixing Microsoft's design errors is never useful, since they will rebreak their products in new ways that are more ingenious and harder to fix.) Yup. In fact, some IPSec firewalls rely on the corporate having a local CA root to issue keys for VPN access. from there it is only a small step to using the same (or parallel issued) keys for email security. The problem there really is that the keys will be flagged as faulty by anyone outside the group (and therefore without the root key already imported), and that will usually only work in a semi-rigid hierachical structure. There *is* an attempt to set up something resembling a Web of
at Monday, September 30, 2002 7:52 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> was seen to say: trust using x509 certificiates, currently in the early stages at nntp://news.securecomp.org/WebOfTrust
I intended to sign this using Network Associates command line pgp, only to discover that pgp -sa file produced unintellible gibberish, that could only be made sense of by pgp, so that no one would be able to read it without first checking my signature. you made a minor config error - you need to make sure clearsign is enabled.
I suggest that network associates should have hired me as UI design manager, or failing, that, hired the dog from down the street as UI design manager. It's command line. Most cyphergeeks like command line tools powerful and cryptic :)
An interesting tidbit in the September Information Security Bulletin is the claim from MessageLabs that only .005% of the mail they saw in 2002 is encrypted, up from .003% in 2000. (MessageLabs is an outsourcing email anti-virus company.) At this thrilling rate of growth, it will be on the order of between 30 and 40 years before we see most email being encrypted. And about 10 years before we start to see any real hope of a "fax effect." Lets be sure to consider that the PGP model is working. After all, thats faster than the adoption of the, ummm, well, I'm sure someone can take comfort from it. Maybe even someone other than the eavesdroppers. Now, it may be that they have a unusual sampling because only a nutcase company would send all its email through a 3rd party processor. But I don't believe that to be true. Most companies send their email unencrypted through a single ISP. Messagelabs only has it slightly easier when it comes to eavesdropping. Last month, about 5% of my email was sent PGP encrypted, about 2% STARTTLS encrypted, and about 25% SSH encrypted to people on the same mail server, where POP and IMAP only function via SSH. I'd be interested to hear how often email content is protected by any form of crypto, including IPsec, Starttls, ssh delivery, or PGP or SMIME. There's probably an interesting paper in going out and looking at this. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
participants (2)
-
Adam Shostack
-
David Howe