1997-03-21 - Re: PGP Security

Header Data

From: “Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b24a8753bc6ac4eff78232b276a656b9fe25dbd6a22b0ebef1f7f914cf6edb6d
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970320185104.1482A-100000@purple.voicenet.com>
Reply To: <199703201102.GAA30790@dhp.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-03-21 00:02:31 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:02:31 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:02:31 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PGP Security
In-Reply-To: <199703201102.GAA30790@dhp.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970320185104.1482A-100000@purple.voicenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote:

>   I am passing along the following message, not because of my belief in
> the accuracy or veracity of its contents, but merely because of the 
> fact that it seems to have kept getting eaten up by various email
> systems in the attempts to send it to its original destination.
>   The first time it was sent via a remailer, it was bounced for ill-
> defined reasons. The second time it was sent, the remailer was shut
> down, and remains shut down.
>   Efforts to send it through a second remailer also failed, with no
> notice from the server of any problems being received. Other email
> sent through the remailer at the same time encountered no difficulties.

Speaking as "XXXXXXXXX" (or, at least, one of the "XXXXXXXXXs"), I did receive
the following message which originated from "TruthMonger."  Shortly after I
received the message, anon.nymserver.com closed down all of its free,
anonymous accounts due to "abuse."

>   I am only noting the facts, here, not proferring any personal judge-
> ments on the matter, although I have formed my own opinion as to the
> meaning of these facts, particularly since I, myself, came by this 
> post during the process of email interception.

I am skeptical.

> 
> > X-Anon-Password: XXXXXXXXXX
> > X-Anon-To: XXXXXXXXXXX
> > X-Anon-Name: XXXXXXXXXXXX
> 
> XXXXXXXXX,
>  I thought I would reply privately to you, since you seem to
> at least have a willingness to allow the possibility of compromises
> to the security of the encryption methodologies behind PGP programs,
> among others.


Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMzHQxyzIPc7jvyFpAQEVeAgAlCqL2chXC0C79lb5IGGy9zE6eIYl/ZKQ
mHqYRLjZ9wrKh88/1SDgbK1t3fBKPU/VP8NyCsmWcWuvvylXtr+GAoY9YzdovkIG
awCMm6p4oBNzCf0KvzGoLYG0Y+nx+zNrNpM/7Yw4E3YmXPryD/XY1Wzq0309Dt+d
EfotBt+FfBiFXzRJTb1VFur2Yyc8uJipoAwlbKZvLSAyxapQu+YtKrp74FVhCNfe
VsPlh8PyePlP2KVGMdqERVLCR6ru2FMcHrjiEkqZDucTLjx2UMo/0Cw6Gba1oqEQ
pPgsx/bf0L/D2tKVPys6psCPrNK0hvm440LJDi+qAAwJaJtK6wiRvQ==
=Sqf2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----






Thread