I'm all for email encryption and signatures, but I don't see
how this would help against today's phishing attacks very much,
at least not without a much better trust management interface on
email clients (of a kind much better than currently exists
in web browsers).
Otherwise the phishers could just sign their email messages with
valid, certified email keys (that don't belong to the bank)
the same way their decoy web traffic is sometimes signed with
valid, certified SSL keys (that don't belong to the bank).
And even if this problem were solved, most customers still
wouldn't know not to trust unsigned messages purporting
to be from their bank.
-matt
On Feb 12, 2007, at 16:43, James A. Donald wrote:
--
Obviously financial institutions should sign their
messages to their customers, to prevent phishing. The
only such signatures I have ever seen use gpg and come
from niche players.
I have heard that the reason no one signs using PKI is
that lots of email clients throw up panic dialogs when
they get such a message, and at best they present an
opaque, incomprehensible, and useless interface. Has
anyone done marketing studies to see why banks and
massively phished organizations do not sign their
messages to their customers?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BwrcLrYHszR0syC9LdVrjxAionyxVDwbtJq8Xu2q
4ky71ODjPeHF5TC4pnkktFaLHEOfFN4fY8JEyqnfn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
