secure sign & encrypt

[Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder]

On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 18:38, Robert J. Hansen wrote:

> Davis' `exploit' (in 1.1) basically boils down to this: if you can't trust 
> the person you're talking to, then the person you're talking to can use 
> your words in ways you don't like.  Is that a problem?  Sure.  But it's a 
> social problem, not a technological one.  It demands social solutions, not 
> different cryptographic standards.

Agreed that the exploit is not really technological. The programs do
exactly as told. From the senders point of view I agree fully to what
you say. BUT if somebody receives an encrypted message he will almost
always automatically assume secure end to end communication - which may
not be the case. The open question is basically if the user should be
educated that the software does not work the way they think (hard, I
think), or if the software should be modified to match the users
(reasonable, imho) expectations.

-- 
secure email with gpg                 avbidder at fortytwo.ch: key id
0x92082481
                                      avbidder at acter.ch:    key id
0x5E4B731F

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20020521/ebdca9e8/attachment.bin