1996-01-31 - Re: Lotus Notes
Header Data
From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Message Hash: 716036d5ec1b233f632a6e13f92b6e958d7fdf380c632473e8eaaa74bfdfb2f3
Message ID: <199601310113.UAA23562@opine.cs.umass.edu>
Reply To: <199601300743.XAA03525@netcom6.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-31 03:49:31 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 11:49:31 +0800
Raw message
From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 11:49:31 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: Lotus Notes
In-Reply-To: <199601300743.XAA03525@netcom6.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199601310113.UAA23562@opine.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Bill Frantz writes:
> One other small advantage I can see to using Lotus's crippled encryption.
> It disguises the fact that a message is actually (double) encrypted with
> PGP. Attackers have to break the 40 bits before they see the PGP encrypted
> data.
I don't understand. Are you saying that there's a special benefit to doing
superencryption (GAK encryption over non-GAK encryption) when the GAK layer
is Lotus Notes ?
Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
Thread
Return to January 1996
- Return to “frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)”
Return to “futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)”
- 1996-01-30 (Tue, 30 Jan 1996 16:31:27 +0800) - Re: Lotus Notes - frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
- 1996-01-31 (Wed, 31 Jan 1996 11:49:31 +0800) - Re: Lotus Notes - futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)