On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:52:39PM +0200, Meredith L. Patterson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Marsh Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 07/14/2011 01:59 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > > > >> 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 > > > > Those bullet points are far more likely to be brought up at trial than any > of the security properties of OTR. Defense counsel has to weigh the benefits > of presenting evidence -- will it get some point across, or will it be lost > on the judge/jury? >
Just to be clear: there are _no_ OTR-related mathematical points or issues here. The logs were in plain text. OTR has nothing at all to do with their deniability. - Ian _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
