cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1995-11-20 - Re: Design proposal: crypto-capable generic interface

Header Data

From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
To: Raph Levien <raph@c2.org>
Message Hash: 12d2a2b2a72a3e80bd937d481c6b931a1c0aa9aee02eb09b558260f176f6285b
Message ID: <199511192347.PAA07661@tess-turbo.mit.edu>
Reply To: <199511190419.UAA15156@infinity.c2.org>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-20 00:09:09 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:09:09 +0800

Raw message

From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:09:09 +0800
To: Raph Levien <raph@c2.org>
Subject: Re: Design proposal: crypto-capable generic interface
In-Reply-To: <199511190419.UAA15156@infinity.c2.org>
Message-ID: <199511192347.PAA07661@tess-turbo.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> MIME Object Security Services. It's a technically superior alternative
> to PGP, but one with an uncertain future. It's not being actively
> developed by anyone other than TIS, and their TISMOSS prototype
> implementation is far from being generally usable.

What do you mean by "technically superior"?  What technical merits
does MOSS have over PGP?  It does have a better protocol with which to
integrate it into mailers, but it is only a transmission protocol, not
a security mechanism change.  Worse, MOSS uses X.509, which requires a
lot of overhead for certificates.

On the other hand, the MIME-PGP protocol can provide the same
integration functionality as MOSS and still allow the use of the
simple PGP certification structure that already exists.

-derek

Thread