1995-01-17 - remailer security
Header Data
From: Mats Bergstrom <asgaard@sos.sll.se>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 0905e595cc345519d973f67c9962c1592ff2e78a4ac8f697db73c16e0421ef07
Message ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.950117202620.25204C-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>
Reply To: <ab41c1b306021004669b@[132.162.201.201]>
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-17 19:50:55 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:50:55 PST
Raw message
From: Mats Bergstrom <asgaard@sos.sll.se>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:50:55 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: remailer security
In-Reply-To: <ab41c1b306021004669b@[132.162.201.201]>
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.950117202620.25204C-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> If you chain it through 3 or 4 remailers with PGP, then pretty much all 3
> or 4 of them have got to decide to sell you out. I trust Julf a lot, but
> I'm not sure I trust him four times as much as every other remailer
> operator. Or something like that.
I am familiar with this argument and agree. In the discussed case
the alleged abuser had only used one remailer (on a site that keeps
logs world readable at that!). Laziness, I guess. There are ways of
multiple chaining for the lazy, though: C2 lets you pick the chained
sites by clicking on a web-page (but does it encrypt??).
Mats
Thread
Return to January 1995
- Return to “Censored Girls Anonymous <carolb@barton.spring.com>”
- Return to “jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind)”
Return to “Mats Bergstrom <asgaard@sos.sll.se>”
- 1995-01-17 (Tue, 17 Jan 95 10:48:34 PST) - Re: Abuse and Remailer Ethics - jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind)
- 1995-01-17 (Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:50:55 PST) - remailer security - Mats Bergstrom <asgaard@sos.sll.se>
- 1995-01-19 (Thu, 19 Jan 95 01:25:07 PST) - Re: remailer security - Censored Girls Anonymous <carolb@barton.spring.com>
- 1995-01-17 (Tue, 17 Jan 95 11:50:55 PST) - remailer security - Mats Bergstrom <asgaard@sos.sll.se>