> I am writing my dissertation on steganography. Basically I'm writing a
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
You can't fool us.
=
end
(of original message)
Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows:
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World C
I am writing my dissertation on steganography. Basically I'm writing a
technical monograph that would be of use to undergraduate instructors.
What do you think are the best sources on steganography on
the Web? What about books other than Johnson, Katzenbeiser & Peticolas,
and the volumes covering
[An edited copy of "Who Let the Terrorists Succeed?"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/758330.asp]
The now-famous memo Minneapolis agent Coleen Rowley sent to Robert Mueller, director
of the FBI, now widely known as the Federal Bureau of Incompetence. The May 21, 2002
memo, obtained by Time, is one sc
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Curt Smith wrote:
> I agree that under-the-hood encryption is becoming more and
> more prevalent, and that it generally improves security. Also,
> the widespread use of encryption technology helps protect
> cryptorights in general as important to the public good.
This is ki
Mike Rosing wrote:
> If digital crypto, signatures or e-cash are going to get into mass appeal,
> then their operations will be "magic" to the majority. And it all has to
> work, to 1 part in 10^8th or better, without user comprehension.
>
> It may well take "user intervention" to create a si
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Curt Smith wrote:
> A digital signatures must involve a conscious decision by the
> signer to keep their part of an agreement. I maintain that
> this requires user intervention to verify that the signer knew
> that they making an agreement - a "click of understanding" or
> p
I agree that the signer does not need to understand the
mathematics or underlying technology for digital signatures to
be viable. However, what good is an agreement when the parties
do not know what the terms of the agreement are? A signature
(digital or otherwise) generally indicates that the s
Hey, most of your points about crypto going under the hood are well
taken. I wanted to echo Peter Gutmann's comments about PGP, and add
that I see PGP as a protocol, and most of the protocols I use daily
(TCP, IP, UDP, DNS, HTTP, SMTP) have not changed in the last 10 years
and I don't need to upg
I agree that under-the-hood encryption is becoming more and
more prevalent, and that it generally improves security. Also,
the widespread use of encryption technology helps protect
cryptorights in general as important to the public good.
The fundamental problem with "under-the-hood" is that the
hi,
I have an idea of what x9.17 standards says
but no idea behind the mathametcial background of it.
x9.17 standards is a standard but why is it
so.mathametically what makes it a secure key
generator?
Could some 1 pls address the issue.
Thank u very much.
Data.
__
(in response to a topic mentioned in various threads)
I agree that neither CA-verification nor WoT-verification is as
useful as Key Fingerprint-verification for secure communication
between crypto-aware individuals. After all, CA's can be
subverted and WoT is probably best used as a back-up opti
> Anti-snooping operating system close to launch
http://www.m-o-o-t.org/ didn't change much code-wise in the last year or so,
except for the "news" section.
=
end
(of original message)
Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows:
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http:
12 matches
Mail list logo
