1994-02-01 - Re: Index for ftp site csn.org:/mpj/

Header Data

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

Raw message

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...:-)