StealthMonger wrote:
This would destroy the protection of one who depends on off-line,
message-based communication for self-defense.
Such a person may create and maintain a persistent pseudonym through
untraceable chains of random latency, anonymizing remailers which
thwart traffic analysis
from the 'yet another study on signatures of the month' list:
Von: isss-forum - CENORM created 6 March 98
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Van den Berghe Luc
Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Mai 2007 09:00
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Study on the standardisation aspects of eSignatures
I have posted my ideas on defensive use of crypto here:
https://www.subspacefield.org/security/cgi-bin/moin.py/CryptoMaxims
This is not about cipher design, it's more about protocol design
and implementation.
And the very first thing that happened is my browser complained about the
SSL
I thought this was an interesting security-related story:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/05/25/decal-car.html
quoting from the article:
The black-and-yellow sticker, which only costs a loonie, is an
invitation for police to pull over your vehicle if it's on the road
after 1
On 26 May 2007 04:33, James Muir wrote:
Anyone heard of this before?
Been happening all over the place for several years now. Many references at
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/10/please_stop_my.html
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
Hi Gang,
In a class I was in today a statement was made that there is no way
that anyone could present someone else's digital signature as their
own because no one has has their private key to sign it with. This
was in the context of a CA certificate which had it inside. I tried
to suggest
