1994-05-16 - Re: How good is MIT-PGP 2.5?

Header Data

From: paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson)
To: hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu (Robert A. Hayden)
Message Hash: 353b8b6800241a4ba7feec6b626b70f4553da81c350615a4aafee7a696c90ee4
Message ID: <9405160202.AA22493@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9405151936.A7432-0100000@krypton.mankato.msus.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-16 01:00:12 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 15 May 94 18:00:12 PDT

Raw message

From: paul@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Sun, 15 May 94 18:00:12 PDT
To: hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu (Robert A. Hayden)
Subject: Re: How good is MIT-PGP 2.5?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9405151936.A7432-0100000@krypton.mankato.msus.edu>
Message-ID: <9405160202.AA22493@hawksbill.sprintmrn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



> 
> When 2.5 was first announced a few weeks ago (with the non infamous 
> keyserver announcement), there was some concerns expressed over the 
> political manipulations of the new program and thus, the overall security 
> of the code.  To this date I haven't seen any additional commentary on 
> that subject, and I figure that before I recommend locally changing to 
> 2.5, I'd like to find out what exactly was changed from the standpoint of 
> the algoritms and the overall safety of them.
> 
> No flame please, but I am not a math-oriented person, so please keep it 
> in pseudo-english :-)
>

I can't speak to the issue of the code itself, per se, but it should be 
beared in mind that it is still in Beta, right?

- paul







Thread