From: Jeremy Cooper <jeremy@crl.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 94 13:04:32 PST
To: Anthony D Ortenzi <ao27+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Increasing the encrypted/unencrypted ratio (was Re: Insecurity of public key crypto #1 (reply to Mandl))
In-Reply-To: <EhREMRy00iV4I9m6dF@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9403041356.A29317-0100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 2 Mar 1994, Anthony D Ortenzi wrote:


> 
> Well, I know that this might be a bit of a "crazy" idea, but would the
> best way to distribute an encrypted mailing list be to have a PGP setup
> where there is a public key to the mailing list, and all recipients are
> given copies of the secret key?  I know that it might be a bit stupid
> from the security side, but if each person was using PGP, the secret key
> would be PGP encrypted and sent with that person's public key, ensuring
> that only subscribers would get it, and then using that secret key to
> decrypt the messages as they are recieved?
> 
> 
> Just wonderin'....
>                                         Anthony 
> 
> 

I think you are probably not thinking about how Public key systems work.  
It doesn't matter which key you use, public or private, each one reverses 
the effect of the other.  In this case what you are calling the secret 
key would really be the public key, and vice-versa.  You are just asking 
that the public key be known only among the recipients of the list.
                   _  .  _ ___ _  .  _
===-|)/\\/|V|/\/\ (_)/_\|_|\_/(_)/_\|_| Stop by for an excursion into the-===
===-|)||| | |\/\/  mud.crl.com 8888 (_) Virtual Bay Area!                -===