1994-06-03 - Re: Black Eye for NSA, NIST, and Denning

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f7bbc741862818e9ece2f9eba0a8a2e18cfbc286f5484852b2c6c11e7bda3522
Message ID: <9406032241.AA05434@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <9406032148.AA09753@anon.penet.fi>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-03 22:41:46 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 15:41:46 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 15:41:46 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Black Eye for NSA, NIST, and Denning
In-Reply-To: <9406032148.AA09753@anon.penet.fi>
Message-ID: <9406032241.AA05434@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> But let's all acknowledge the technical weight
> and importance of Blaze's result for what it is: minuscule.

I'd love to see Mr. Deadbeat try to produce a similar result some
time. However, even beyond the raw intellectual achievement, Matt's
result is Pretty Good technically. He showed a major flaw in the
proposed escrowed encryption protocol that renders it pretty much
valueless. Deadbeat misses the boat when he notes you can pre-encrypt
-- with Matt's technique, I can actually interoperate with someone who
isn't attempting to avoid escrow. I'd like to see Deadbeat explain how
to manage that via any other method than the one proposed.

Perry





Thread