From: adwestro@ouray.Denver.Colorado.EDU (Alan Westrope)
To: rondavis@datawatch.com
Message Hash: 6e17d88f29e228ba1776770acd5c74fec47a5043caca0d27cb8d5b1a023832d1
Message ID: <ZmNJjaa0iQ$Pyarn@ouray.denver.colorado.edu>
Reply To: <9401310910.aa24414@gateway.datawatch.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-01 01:55:26 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 17:55:26 PST
From: adwestro@ouray.Denver.Colorado.EDU (Alan Westrope)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 17:55:26 PST
To: rondavis@datawatch.com
Subject: Re: Index for ftp site csn.org:/mpj/
In-Reply-To: <9401310910.aa24414@gateway.datawatch.com>
Message-ID: <ZmNJjaa0iQ$Pyarn@ouray.denver.colorado.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> A subset implementation of the proposed Privacy
> Enhanced Mail standard. Not as secure as PGP or
> Viacrypt PGP, but it is both free and free of patent
> infringements in the USA.
>
> I just recently got MacRipem and find it much easier to use than PGP,
> and was wondering why I should use PGP over Ripem. The above seems to
> indicate that Ripem isn't as secure. Why is this?
Bruce Schneier's (excellent!) book states that the only info available to
someone cryptanalyzing a pgp-encrypted file is the six-digit key ID. PEM
"leaves quite a bit of information about the sender, recipient, and message
in the unencrypted header." (p. 436)
Alan Westrope <awestrop@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
KeyID: 359639 <adwestro@ouray.denver.colorado.edu>
PGP fingerprint: D6 89 74 03 77 C8 2D 43 7C CA 6D 57 29 25 69 23
finger for public key
--
"Ah, ah...see them there! Like Gorgons, with gray cloaks,
and snakes coiled swarming round their bodies! Let me go!"
-- Aeschylus, _The Choephori_ (4larry...:-)
Return to February 1994
Return to “Ron Davis <rondavis@datawatch.com>”