Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
(The reason this is interesting (to me?) is that there are not so many
instances in our field where there are open design competitions at this
level. The results
On 03/23/2013 10:25 AM, ianG wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
I find that interesting too. What list would that be?
Guido.
___
cryptography
On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
Because Adium built it in?
(The reason this is interesting (to me?) is that there are not so many
instances in
Was there anyone trying to use OpenPGP and/or X.509 in IM?
I mean I know many IM protocols support SSL which itself uses X.509, but
that doesnt really meaningfully encrypt the messages in a privacy sense as
they flow in the plaintext through chat server with that model.
btw is anyone noticing
On 21/03/13 at 03:07am, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Linux has not warmed up to the fact that userland needs help in
storing secrets from the OS.
http://standards.freedesktop.org/secret-service/
but maybe I have misunderstood your statement.
___
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/23/13 7:36 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did
not?
Because Adium built it in?
In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
On 23 March 2013 16:51, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
3. It was built into the most popular open-source IM clients (Pidgin
and Adium).
It isn't actually built in to Pidgin. Should be, IMO.
___
cryptography mailing list
On Saturday, March 23, 2013, ianG wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
Because it turns out that starting with anonymous key exchange is good
enough in many cases. Leap of faith would have been
On 23 March 2013 18:08, Stephan Neuhaus stephan.neuh...@tik.ee.ethz.ch wrote:
On Mar 23, 2013, at 15:04, Adam Back wrote:
I think its past time people considered switching to another IM client, an
open source one with p2p routed traffic and/or end 2 end security,
preferably with some
On 2013-03-24 3:25 AM, Jon Callas wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM
On 2013-03-24 6:28 AM, Ethan Heilman wrote:
Does anyone know where I would be able to find information on what
cryptographic hardware is currently used by Islamic Republic's
military and diplomatic organizations? �What vendors they are using
and what elements of the Iranian government
Crypto AG has been accused of rigging its machines in collusion with
intelligence agencies such as the German Bundesnachrichtendienst
(BND) and the United States National Security Agency (NSA), enabling such
organisations to read the encrypted traffic produced by the
machines.[2] Suspicions of
NSA Cryptolog, August-September 1986 reviews Ralph Merkel's
book, Secrecy, Authentication,and Public Key Systems, with disdain
and dismissal:
No library need acquire this tract.
The once Secret review cites the PKC work of James Ellis, Malcolm
Williamson and Cliff Cocks at GCHQ eleven years
14 matches
Mail list logo
