1994-02-25 - No Subject

Header Data

From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
To: cort@ecn.purdue.edu (cort)
Message Hash: f2c8b7e537fa8f46e62f4759679d101894cace18a8704e2b1b08c68ab275a3e2
Message ID: <9402250120.AA12855@toxicwaste.media.mit.edu>
Reply To: <9402250101.AA05179@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-25 01:20:32 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:20:32 PST

Raw message

From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:20:32 PST
To: cort@ecn.purdue.edu (cort)
Subject: No Subject
In-Reply-To: <9402250101.AA05179@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Message-ID: <9402250120.AA12855@toxicwaste.media.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

An interesting idea, although highly unpracticable.  Sending a binary
is nearly impossible.  As an example, I have at my disposal (and I log
into regularly) at least 6 different platforms.  All Unix, but each
one would require its own binary!

This doesn't mean that your idea has no merit.  On the other hand, it
is an interesting key distribution model.  Except there are a number
of problems that I can see.  First, anything you know about the person
is something that someone else could probably do a little research and
find out as well.  This inherently means it is not a very secure
channel, rather it is only moderately secure.

Also, there is no way to meet your goal of "no external binary
needed."  There may be a few things you can do in lieu of this, but
all of them require some knowledge of the recipient hardware system.
But in a case such as mine, even that wouldn't help (do you send it
for an RT, Vax, Decmips, RS6000, Alpha, Linux, Sun386i, Next, ...?)

Like I said, its an interesting key distribution model, but I do not
see any way to realize it under your assumptions.