NODE 4432adb0Bad Signatures
geoff@commtouch.co.il (geoff)Sun, 23 Jun 1996 04:20:46 +0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Sat Jun 22 18:22:50 1996
On Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:15:13 "Travis J.I. Corcoran" wrote:
> I use a lisp package for emacs that I wrote to automatically verify
> signatures on incoming mail, so I already see the 10% of messages
> which are improperly signed displayed in a red "bad signature"
> font. Thus, I'd have no need of this service.
>
> Further, it makes philisophical/political sense to me to have
> verification distributed. Every node should be doing it's own
> security.
I am not convinced. For a mailing list it makes sense for all members
to be aware of message integrity problems. Not all cypherpunks have
your lisp package or Pronto Secure which make signature verification of
the 10-20 pgp signed messages per day on the list a non trivial task.
I also like the idea that cpunks provides as a byproduct a platform for
developers to test and debug their security products. We really should
be getting the bugs out of plain text signatures. You cannot expect Joe
User to differentiate between an intruder and a gateway massaging the
message.
Geoff Klein
Pronto Secure Product Manager
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMcwPzkLv5OMYFK1FAQH8tgP/Y/Qai5TQj45CGk7U9OdF5BrdycyQpKuE
UfAnlFut/LmgumyiM2wuy6+CPv8mPITAp375rNVx9UxvyRj8Gv8MFfEEuwVFZpNb
WbiWvl2yPBCV/ZBlEdmXJUPhfYto3FFjZX6AwKTMXgHd1j7uW3pBGSW24McEjM2I
aBQ1iDbLUY0=
=Igm9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
NODE 3066d446Re: Bad Signatures
Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>Sun, 23 Jun 1996 10:20:43 +0800
geoff wrote:
| I am not convinced. For a mailing list it makes sense for all members
| to be aware of message integrity problems. Not all cypherpunks have
Why? I don't care that your message lacked a signature, I
neither know who you are, or have any history of interactions with
you.
| your lisp package or Pronto Secure which make signature verification of
| the 10-20 pgp signed messages per day on the list a non trivial task.
I'll claim that anyone on the list who wants to check
signatures could do so, and that having a 'signature bot' which would
need to sign its opinions adds nothing to message security, except a
single point for comprimise.
| I also like the idea that cpunks provides as a byproduct a platform for
| developers to test and debug their security products. We really should
I see; you're offering your web site for the complete
archives?
Adam
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume