1995-01-16 - Re: How do I know if its encrypted?

Header Data

From: pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 798e185ec11bd32607f4ec1a2c0bf81e2ebc4552e94a79609adf2aeb7aa3ad47
Message ID: <9501160137.AA17721@eri.erinet.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-16 01:45:38 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 17:45:38 PST

Raw message

From: pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 17:45:38 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: How do I know if its encrypted?
Message-ID: <9501160137.AA17721@eri.erinet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>>             newsgroups.  Mandating encryption renders this mode useless.
>>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
At 02:42 AM 1/15/95 -0600, Larry E wrote:
>Here, I don't understand your point.  If you mean an encrypted
>message to a remailer cannot result in a plaintext usenet posting,
>that of course is not true.  The remailers have PGP keys of their
>own, just as any private user may.  In addition, some of the
>remailers support direct usenet posting.  Thus, a message may be
>encrypted to the remailer and posted as plaintext as the remailer
>decrypts the message.

I wasn't referring to requiring encryption using the remailer's public key.  
I was referring to the stuff discussed here, where the remailer operator 
insists on ensuring that the traffic is encrypted over and beyond the 
remailer's public key, in order to give the operator plausable deniability.

Really, all inbound remailer traffic should be encrypted with the remailer's 
public key if any significant level of security is desired.

    --Paul J. Ste. Marie
      pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com






Thread