From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:14:35 +0800
To: simsong@vineyard.net (Simson L. Garfinkel)
Subject: How would an FV attack fail? (was: Re: FV's blatant double standards)
In-Reply-To: <199602060139.UAA03880@vineyard.net>
Message-ID: <960205.233714.1y9.rnr.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In list.cypherpunks, simsong@vineyard.net writes:

> Yes, clearly if you are not concerned about missing 50-75% of First
> Virtual's users, this attack will work just fine.

Could you characterize the failure modes?  I see 2 main ones:

    Confirmation notices directed to another address invisible to the
    successfully infiltrated attacker.

    Failure to initially infiltrate:

        Infiltration attempt failed.

        Potential victim never contacts infection vector.

I'm curious how you'd estimate the breakdown over these modes, and if
you see additional failure modes I've missed.
- -- 
Roy M. Silvernail --  roy@cybrspc.mn.org will do just fine, thanks.
          "Does that not fit in with your plans?"
                      -- Mr Wiggen, of Ironside and Malone (Monty Python)
          PGP public key available upon request (send yours)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMRbrPxvikii9febJAQFxxwP+MjHD4lRb8kMiFF+5DlN4OTZqolyQWlfE
aj2Tk59/FNrOctW4Gqv4b3EkTuLdc1se1CDs/UDQQilmSNiF5cxfJauPVyETQG3H
0NZ5T7wI9WrJp6JVxc4DVwu7aUZwmcDYB6tKPT2ZsH2jhKGz9pUn8kieZt4zM+/7
T0e80OEELvA=
=ZGC2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----