On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:15:36PM +0100, Ian G wrote:
Email is hard to get encrypted, but it didn't stop Skype from doing
encryped IMs easily.
Likewise I have secured email communications with my wife via a single
key exchange, so what? Skype has not easily created an interoperable
On 3/1/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have an idea of what this is about? (From Computerworld):
-- Jerry
I believe this is the same technology that Bruce Schneier commented on
in his security blog:
--- John W Noerenberg II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh really? Then you should be able to send a note to my gmail
address.
So I have been reading this thread for the last couple days and the
above comment gives me a chance to voice something that really needs to
be said. Let's face it, a large
Here's a 1997 paper on quantum computing in the large that I had
been asking about:
http://www.media.mit.edu/physics/projects/spins/home.html
Neil Gershenfeld and Isaac Chuang have developed an entirely new
approach to quantum computation that promises to solve many of these
problems. Instead of
msg.pgp
Description: PGP message
Hey,
In Maurer's paper, which is the last link here on the following page,
he proposes to use a public random pad to encrypt the plaintext
based on bits selected by a key. What I'm wondering is why he chose
the strange construction for encryption; namely, that he uses an
additive (mod 2) cipher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NPR : E-Mail Encryption Rare in Everyday Use
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:16:55 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Alten wrote:
At 05:12 PM 2/26/2006 +, Ben
More strongly, if we've never met, and you are not in the habit of
routinely signing email, thereby tying a key to your e-persona, it
makes no sense to speak of *secure* communication to *you*.
Regularly signing email is not necessarily a good idea. I like to be able
to repudiate most emails I
* Bill Stewart:
Or you could try using the Google Keyserver -
just because there isn't one
doesn't mean you can't type in 9E94 4513 3983 5F70
or 9383DE06 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key
and see what's in Google's cache.
What a peculiar advice. We know for sure that Google logs these
At 05:58 AM 3/3/2006 +, Ben Laurie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Alten wrote:
At 05:12 PM 2/26/2006 +, Ben Laurie wrote:
Alex Alten wrote:
At 02:59 PM 2/24/2006 +, Ben Laurie wrote:
Ed Gerck wrote: We have keyservers for this (my chosen
Hi,
Basically our customer required us to encrypt any team communications. So we
used PGP with email. I know the body of the email was encrypted, and I
believe attachments were too. The certs were used to automate the
decryption. Basically the PGP plugin would check the incoming mail's sender
At 03:13 AM 3/6/2006 +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Basically our customer required us to encrypt any team communications. So we
used PGP with email. I know the body of the email was encrypted, and I
believe attachments were too. The certs were used to automate the
decryption. Basically the PGP
Alex Alten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 03:13 AM 3/6/2006 +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Basically our customer required us to encrypt any team communications. So we
used PGP with email. I know the body of the email was encrypted, and I
believe attachments were too. The certs were used to
I've summarized the current directions that our group is working on
towards improving security for web users. I'll probably soon post it as
HTML, but I'm terribly busy and so far just posted it in eCrypt as PDF,
see at http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/083.pdf.
We hope to soon be able to provide more
Alex Alten wrote:
At 05:58 AM 3/3/2006 +, Ben Laurie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Alten wrote:
At 05:12 PM 2/26/2006 +, Ben Laurie wrote:
Alex Alten wrote:
At 02:59 PM 2/24/2006 +, Ben Laurie wrote:
Ed Gerck wrote: We have keyservers for
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:15:36PM +0100, Ian G wrote:
Email is hard to get encrypted, but it didn't stop Skype from doing
encryped IMs easily.
Likewise I have secured email communications with my wife via a single
key exchange, so what? Skype has not easily created
Anton Stiglic wrote:
More strongly, if we've never met, and you are not in the habit of
routinely signing email, thereby tying a key to your e-persona, it
makes no sense to speak of *secure* communication to *you*.
Regularly signing email is not necessarily a good idea. I like to be able
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:53:16PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
These are closed systems that compete with each other, once
they become federated, they can no longer compete on end-to-end
security, because that is a property of the interoperability
framework, not the individual
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:53:16PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
These are closed systems that compete with each other, once
they become federated, they can no longer compete on end-to-end
security, because that is a property of the interoperability
framework, not
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Amir Herzberg wrote:
I've summarized the current directions that our group is working on
towards improving security for web users. I'll probably soon post it as
HTML, but I'm terribly busy and so far just posted it in eCrypt as PDF,
see at
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:55:16PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I never made the strong claim that the federated Jabber network is or
always will remain spam free, only the weaker claim that its abuse and
identity problems are and will remain less serious than those of the
federated email
21 matches
Mail list logo