From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
To: “Timothy C. May” <tcmay@netcom.com>
Message Hash: ff904417a19a1337f449713043edf4a3af8f2cd0a24e5e78b27f93e127abcac2
Message ID: <9408242328.AA12758@fnord.lehman.com>
Reply To: <199408240630.XAA26030@netcom4.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-08-24 23:36:21 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 16:36:21 PDT
From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 16:36:21 PDT
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Using PGP on Insecure Machines
In-Reply-To: <199408240630.XAA26030@netcom4.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9408242328.AA12758@fnord.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 23:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Yes, some of you PGP fans may say "Sigh!" when you hear that I don't
particularly like downloading-and-then-decrypting a message only to
find it saying, "Gee, Tim, isn't this PGP stuff really neat?" Too bad.
Actually, my sigh included a bit of ``Gee, I thought this guy was
supposed to be one of the mega-rich, so why's he so low-tech that he
can't run PGP, etc at home.''
As to the security, using PGP in the way that I do routinely is more
secure than not using it -- the number of people who have the special
access that would ease the cracking effort is limited. Also, the key
that I advertise is not my only key. To the best of my knowledge, my
secure key pair has never had either the public or private part touch
a hard disk, much less a network.
I'm happy that you PGP fans are thoroughly infatuated with using PGP
for everything. Just knock off the clucking and sighing about those
who don't see it as the end-all and be-all of today's communications.
It reeks of fanaticism.
Oh puhleeeze . . . .
Trying to get strong crypto to be commonplace is hardly the most
fanatical thing that gets discussed on this list.
Rick
Return to August 1994
Return to “tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)”