full-disclosure - On PGP (was: Wiretap or Magic Lantern?)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: hoho at tacomeat.net (Colin Slater)
Subject: On PGP (was: Wiretap or Magic Lantern?)

On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 11:56, Feher Tamas wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> >>The terrorsts are not stupid, they use strong encryption and
> >>there is proof that PGP repels NSA.
> >
> >What proof are you referring to? 
> 
> The case of the italian comrades:
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110841,00.asp

Perhaps you've never read Cryptonomicon. The NSA is not stupid. Just
because they claim they can't decrypt something means nothing about
their actual capabilities. The NSA certainly is not interested in
revealing its capabilities to the rest of the world just to catch a few
criminals. It would be far more profitable to use this capability for
foriegn inteligence, when the public does not has to know how the
information was retrieved, than to blow it on one case and have everyone
switch to a different cipher.

This isn't an obscure topic relegated to dissertations in information
theory. Rent the movie Enigma, or borrow cryptonomicon or quicksilver by
Neal Stephenson from your library.