Anyone know what became of the Gaim-E Project?

David Shaw dshaw at
Tue Nov 4 06:32:19 CET 2008

On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:08 PM, David Picón Álvarez wrote:

> From: "Robert J. Hansen" <rjh at>
>> To turn the "I love you" example into an attack, consider this:  
>> Alice sends Bob a message saying "Remember, you need to deliver the  
>> product  at midnight."  Bob, who doesn't want responsibility for  
>> delivering the product, cuts-and-pastes Alice's message and sends  
>> it on to Charlie, forging it as being from Alice.  Charlie receives  
>> a message that seems  to be from Alice, has a meaningful message,  
>> and has a valid signature  from a trusted key.  Charlie delivers  
>> the product at midnight.  The  next day Alice sees the product was  
>> delivered, and sends Bob a message  saying "thank you for  
>> delivering the product, the check is in the mail."
> Fair enough, but I think all these examples rely on faulty or  
> insufficient metadata. For instance if the from, to, cc, bcc and  
> subject headers were included in the sealing, things like this would  
> not happen. (Not sure exactly what headers pgp-mime does include  
> much less s/mime).

Both PGP/MIME and S/MIME are built over MIME, and have the same  
metadata protection.  Specifically, none of the mail headers are  
included.  This is not a flaw - it's just not how MIME handles this  
sort of thing (with some headers covered, and some not).  If you want  
to protect an message, you protect the entire thing as a message/ 
rfc822 object which is completely covered.  Think of it as treating  
the message you are protecting as an attachment to another message.


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list