On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Marsh Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/14/2011 01:59 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: >> >> did the first party hack into the second party's computer and plant >> the log file? had someone else hacked into it and used it to talk >> with the first party? -- but that's also outside the crypto >> protocol. >> >> Put another way, the goal in a trial is not a mathematical proof, >> it's proof to a certain standard of evidence, based on many different >> pieces of data. Life isn't a cryptographic protocol. > > The interesting thing in this case though is that the person providing the > plaintext log file is: > > a) a convicted felon > b) working for the investigators/prosecutors (since before the purported log > file's creation?) > c) himself skilled in hacking Agreed (I'm glad someone else said it).
> I haven't heard anything about any other evidence that may exist, but just a > text file by itself (or perhaps even the informant's computer as a whole) > doesn't seem particularly credible to me. I'm not sure we will see any evidence. I would expect this case to stay under the purview of the military, where folks (soldiers?) have fewer rights. Jeff _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
