On Wednesday 15 December 2010 20:40:20 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 19:56 +0100, Arnold Krille wrote: > > On Wednesday 15 December 2010 16:41:32 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > > > On 12/15/2010 11:14 AM, gene heskett wrote: > > > > Ralf I suspect, if he were to use pgp, would be like me, and only > > > > trust pgp-2.6.2a, the last one before they put Zimmerman in jail for > > > > a few years. I have often said, and have been called the uber > > > > paranoid for it, that one of the conditions of his release was that > > > > the next generation of pgp had a back door. > > > > > > as they say, paranoia doesn't mean they're not after you! > > > > > > :-D > > > > > > i think this problem is mitigated somewhat by using open protocols with > > > open crypto implementations that have undergone public scrutiny. unless > > > you want to believe that "the NSA has quantum computers anyway and have > > > solved the entire problem space years ago" :) > > > > Some months back fbi had to admit that current encryption is to good for > > them. After a year of trying they returned a hard-disk (which Mexican > > police asked them to decrypt) admitting they couldn't do anything to get > > the data... Went through fefe's blog... > > > > Have fun, > > > > Arnold > > There still is a much easier way to decrypt mails. I'm not talking about > a completely encrypted hard disk. Get the non-public, private key. Is > this key saved in a file on a computer that is connected to the web, > e.g. for usage directly with your mail client? Hack the firewall and get > that key or burglarise the flat to get access to the non-public, private > key.
Still you have to know the password for the key :-P
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
