cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1996-02-01 - Re: Flaw in Netscape rejoinder (was Re: FV Demonstrates Fatal Flaw in Software Encryption of Credit Cards)

Header Data

From: Tony Iannotti <tony@secapl.com>
To: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
Message Hash: c7dbf23b68160f6de93dcf7d46cc97f9e96c7a3e88a317fc35f5777b24e6ba61
Message ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.960131190807.120542D-100000@fozzie.secapl.com>
Reply To: <gl3zCVKMc50e1T2Rsa@nsb.fv.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-01 01:33:57 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 09:33:57 +0800

Raw message

From: Tony Iannotti <tony@secapl.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 09:33:57 +0800
To: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
Subject: Re: Flaw in Netscape rejoinder (was Re: FV Demonstrates Fatal Flaw in Software Encryption of Credit Cards)
In-Reply-To: <gl3zCVKMc50e1T2Rsa@nsb.fv.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.960131190807.120542D-100000@fozzie.secapl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

> choice of FV vs encryption is an either/or thing.  Combine FV's Virtual
> PIN mechanism with transport encryption and you've indiputably got
> something that's a LOT safer than just using credit cards with
> encryption, and a bit safer than our current system, too.  But I know,

Belt & Suspenders is Good (and you want the best and best tested of both.)
I may be being naive, but I think the contest profits all, so as brothers 
fight ye! ;-)

Thread