Re: Mandatory Email verification

I've been vaguely following the thread, which seems to be attempting to
close a loophole in port 25. Assuming you succeeded, wouldn't a clever
demon hacker simply find another way to forge messages? I have seen that
any system a human can devise, another human can eventually break. This
leads me to believe that eventually we will have to begin acting on our
honor, and provide severe consequences for dishonorable behavior. I
haven't finished working out what "honor" means in this social context.

Ken

Ken Landaiche:
> 
> I've been vaguely following the thread, which seems to be attempting to
> close a loophole in port 25. Assuming you succeeded, wouldn't a clever
> demon hacker simply find another way to forge messages?

Probably.  The only thing this would do is make forging a mail message a
non-trivial operation.  It in no way makes forging an email message
impossible, it just makes it a little bit harder than telneting to the smtp
port.

> This
> leads me to believe that eventually we will have to begin acting on our
> honor, and provide severe consequences for dishonorable behavior.

Like what?  When identity is "weak" then honor has no meaning...

jim

Ken Landaiche writes
> I have seen that
> any system a human can devise, another human can eventually break. 

False.  Most cryptographic algorithms these days are secure.

Windows NT is secure.

> This
> leads me to believe that eventually we will have to begin acting on our
> honor, 

Walking through a security hole on a computer is not necessarily
dishonorable, though many dishonorable things can be done once
you are through that hole.


> and provide severe consequences for dishonorable behavior. 

If "we" provide "sever consequences" then we are not relying
on honor, but on coercion.

I
> haven't finished working out what "honor" means in this social context.

So I see.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com

> Ken Landaiche writes
> > I have seen that
> > any system a human can devise, another human can eventually break. 
> 
> False.  Most cryptographic algorithms these days are secure.

Huh?  How do you count that?  There are dozens of algorithms described
in Schneier; most are described as either being of unknown strength
(due to insufficient cryptanalysis), or broken, or substantially
similar to a broken cipher.  Only a few are described as strong.

There's only one unconditionally secure cipher: the true one-time-pad.

> Windows NT is secure.

And pigs can fly, and you have prime development land for sale in
south Florida..

					- Bill