1996-04-11 - Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun

Header Data

From: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
To: “Christopher J. Shaulis” <cjs@netcom.com>
Message Hash: 76a9f2a7522336125942025635eb33df8b0f2d13dd44cb708601376d70029ee8
Message ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960411081147.6234C-100000@chivalry>
Reply To: <199604110005.UAA00491@localhost.cjs.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-11 21:33:56 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:33:56 +0800

Raw message

From: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:33:56 +0800
To: "Christopher J. Shaulis" <cjs@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun
In-Reply-To: <199604110005.UAA00491@localhost.cjs.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960411081147.6234C-100000@chivalry>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Christopher J. Shaulis wrote:
> In the future, you will have to sign all packets (with a key
> conveniently available from verisign and noone else).

No - the company that will bring it to you: AT&T :)

Seriously - putting this sort of stuff at the IP layer is not doable; 
confidentiality and encryption, at least on a host-to-host basis is 
sensible (we know a protocol about that, don't we children)

Application AND user level authentication doesn't fit so well below the 
application level. 


Am I the only one to find it really wierd that the Unabomber had a 
pen-pal? Guess they don't last long..

They say in  online country             So which side are you on boys
There is no middle way                  Which side are you on
You'll either be a Usenet man           Which side are you on boys
Or a thug for the CDA                   Which side are you on?
  National Union of Computer Operatives; Hackers, local 37   APL-CPIO