full-disclosure - Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day

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]

Message-ID: <26834.1184686895@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:41:35 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Pieter de Boer <pieter@...darkside.nl>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: selling office 2003 & 2007 0day

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:12:04 +0200, Pieter de Boer said:

> Ohwell, signing with public keys is pointless anyhow.. *whistles innocently*

Signing it with the *recipient's* public key can be somewhat interesting, as
it results in a signature that only the recipient can identify - if anybody
else tries to verify it, they can't, which results in a mostly-repudiatable
signature.

Of course, the *usual* use case is to either:

*encrypt* with the recipients public key (so only their private key can decrypt
it), and then sign the whole thing with your private key (so they can verify
you did it by using your public key).  This results in something that anybody
can verify you sent, but only the recipient can read.  or...

Sign with your private key, then encrypt with their public key - at that point
only the recipient can decode it.  In addition, only the recipient can see the
(now-decoded) signature and verify it.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/