cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-08-24 - Re: Using PGP on Insecure Machines

Header Data

From: paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com (Paul Robichaux)
To: ecarp@netcom.com
Message Hash: eda7d1cfebd432e75b3d55789edeba3d9f03fd1c62e16bf751f2fab119fade60
Message ID: <199408241837.AA14936@poboy.b17c.ingr.com>
Reply To: <m0qdImM-0004EcC@khijol.uucp>
UTC Datetime: 1994-08-24 18:37:19 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 11:37:19 PDT

Raw message

From: paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com (Paul Robichaux)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 11:37:19 PDT
To: ecarp@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Using PGP on Insecure Machines
In-Reply-To: <m0qdImM-0004EcC@khijol.uucp>
Message-ID: <199408241837.AA14936@poboy.b17c.ingr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> At the risk of repeating myself, what's the problem with wrapping PGP in 
> a shell script?  Works for me - see a previous mailing, complete with 
> wrapper scripts.  I can send either encrypted or just signed email 
> without especially noticing it.

At the risk of repeating what Tim's said in the past, shellscript
wrappers are useless to people who use Macs, Windows/WinNT, and so on.

At the risk of repeating what Tim, Perry, and several others have
said, using PGP- with or without shell scripts- on a machine which you
do not physically control is also risky.

- -Paul

- -- 
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG        |  Demand that your elected reps support the
perobich@ingr.com             |  Constitution, the whole Constitution, and
Not speaking for Intergraph.  |  nothing but the Constitution.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBLluTZqfb4pLe9tolAQEUUAP9F3gnvVC3HXvx2lB8RZzJaS/xdSkbldqp
sH2WN0WdqZ/R+SJstCC1KL/Z4gd0fQAShIlyxG41pWkFVtQpCYXY4lR7ScX4/4/b
F78BcBHtz+2wIWq1CO0DnCxjOcgAZNvzhCzJUMr8l4AS2kfiMLh8r0uSUsq7jq93
vGNiBJu0+Ys=
=OQO0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread