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.