At 12:09 AM + 10/16/2001, David Wagner wrote:
It seems the FBI hopes the law will make a distinction between software
that talks directly to the modem and software that doesn't. They note
that PGP falls into the latter category, and thus -- they argue -- they
should be permitted to snoop on
The keystroke capture component (which does not work when the modem is
operating) would capture email when composed offline before transmission. I
don't know whether this needs a wiretap warrant or not, but in effect it is
tapping email, during a part of it's journey from brain to brain.
The
In message 9qftr6$23i$[EMAIL PROTECTED], David Wagner writes:
It seems the FBI hopes the law will make a distinction between software
that talks directly to the modem and software that doesn't. They note
that PGP falls into the latter category, and thus -- they argue -- they
should be permitted
The same is true of, say, libX11.so, or worse, libpam.so, on Unix
systems.
-derek
Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of my continual gripes about Windows security has to do with the GUI
DLLs. An attacker could silently replace a component with one which has
the old version number and
Capturing keystrokes of email in composition would appear to me to be part
of a transfer of ..intelligence of any nature transmitted ... in part by a
wire..., and nothing to do with stored email or 2703, but I am not a
lawyer.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
[snip]
The
At 11:43 PM 10/15/2001 +0100, Adam Back wrote:
If you read the web page it was just a demo created by ABC news --
that doesn't count as found in the wild. Not that it would be that
far out to find the odd image in the wild created as a novelty by
someone tinkering with stego software, or
Both the key schemes document and the key management guideline for the NIST
key management workshop are now available
at http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/kms/workshop2-page.html. Please
register by October 30 by email, FAX or phone; see the web page for
details. If unable to attend, a report
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Laurie writes:
Trei, Peter wrote:
Windows XP at least checks for drivers not signed by MS, but
whose security this promotes is an open question.
Errr ... surely this promotes MS's bottom line and no-one's security? It
is also a major pain if you happen to want
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:30:05AM -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
Adam Back wrote:
Stego isn't a horseman, and the press drumming up scare stories around
stego is ludicrous. We don't need any more stupid cryptography or
internet related laws. More stupid laws will not make anyone safer.
I
Trei, Peter wrote:
Windows XP at least checks for drivers not signed by MS, but
whose security this promotes is an open question.
Errr ... surely this promotes MS's bottom line and no-one's security? It
is also a major pain if you happen to want to write a device driver, of
course.
Cheers,
10 matches
Mail list logo
