1996-02-08 - Re: FV’s blatant double standards
Header Data
From: “Simson L. Garfinkel” <simsong@vineyard.net>
To: simsong@vineyard.net
Message Hash: 89ad44c49aa2d35d6e19b5c3f4ebeba52ddf5794a06503dacace61ad4b5188dc
Message ID: <199602060139.UAA03880@vineyard.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-08 00:19:44 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 08:19:44 +0800
Raw message
From: "Simson L. Garfinkel" <simsong@vineyard.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 08:19:44 +0800
To: simsong@vineyard.net
Subject: Re: FV's blatant double standards
Message-ID: <199602060139.UAA03880@vineyard.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Yes, clearly if you are not concerned about missing 50-75% of First Virtual's
users, this attack will work just fine.
-simson
Thread
Return to February 1996
- Return to “roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)”
Return to ““Simson L. Garfinkel” <simsong@vineyard.net>”
- 1996-02-08 (Thu, 8 Feb 1996 08:19:44 +0800) - Re: FV’s blatant double standards - “Simson L. Garfinkel” <simsong@vineyard.net>
- 1996-02-06 (Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:14:35 +0800) - How would an FV attack fail? (was: Re: FV’s blatant double standards) - roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)