On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 11:49:28PM -0400, marqueandreprisal--- via Gnupg-users wrote: [snip] > Like I said generally PGP was > designed for DOS which is pretty good security wise.
Sigh. I assume (okay, well, I remember Phil Zimmermann's PGP, so I know) that when you say "DOS", you mean MS-DOS and not any of the other literally dozens, if not hundreds, of formerly popular disk operating systems out there. I remember MS-DOS. Without any intent to offend anybody, I can assure you that security was never a design goal there. And it was never achieved. I mean, it took under a hundred lines of barely competent assembly (I know, it was my second attempt at 8086 assembly :)) to write a stealth resident program. For somebody who knew what they were doing, it took less than 512 bytes to write an incredibly powerful stealth virus (look up V512/Number of the Beast). Any program could intercept (and disable!) any interrupt. Any program could access any I/O ports. No, MS-DOS was not "pretty good security wise". It was never meant to be, and it never was. So please, please stop repeating that. G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] PGP key: https://www.ringlet.net/roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
