1996-07-06 - Re: Need PGP-awareness in common utilities

Header Data

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: bryce@digicash.com
Message Hash: a88768c5190cd9a3cb7fb4c741bfc0d24ee9210e74dc1f713a703f5e34942297
Message ID: <199607062013.PAA00038@manifold.algebra.com>
Reply To: <199607061950.VAA21507@digicash.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-06 23:08:01 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 07:08:01 +0800

Raw message

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 07:08:01 +0800
To: bryce@digicash.com
Subject: Re: Need PGP-awareness in common utilities
In-Reply-To: <199607061950.VAA21507@digicash.com>
Message-ID: <199607062013.PAA00038@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


bryce@digicash.com wrote:
> An entity calling itself ichudov@algebra.com probably wrote 
> something like:
> >
> > My moderation bot STUMP is not only PGP-aware, it is also doing
> > a lot of PGP-related things. Among them: 
> > 
> > 1) For posters who voluntarily chose additional protection, STUMP allows
> > only messages with a valid PGP signature to be posted. 
> <snip>
> > 2) All exchange between my modbot and human moderators is PGP-signed
> > (and encrypted when necessary)
> <snip>
> > 3) All message approved for posting to usenet get signed with Greg
> > Rose's PGPMoose program.
> <snip>
> > 4) There is an additional service for those who post through anonymous
> > remailers BUT want to have an identity and reputation.
> <snip>  <Great idea!>
> > We currently have at least two posters whose real life identities are
> > unknown, who use this feature and have sent us their PGP keys.
> > 
> > STUMP is currently working in production mode seemingly with no problems.
> 
> 
> Okay Igor, that is an impressive list of features!  Now what 

thanks

> I want to know (and what I want other people here to hear) is:
> _How_ difficult was it to incorporate these PGP features into
> your software? 

Almost nothing is dufficult, in general. In particular, implementation
of these features was easy. Coming up with how they should work was
not that easy. Thanks to members of Cypherpunks list for their
suggestions, by the way.

You know, this stuff is easy to do in perl and sh.

> My guess is that it was a simple matter of
> making a couple of system calls to PGP, plus maybe extra 
> defense against replay attacks (you _do_ have defense against
> replay attacks don't you?) and the fact that you have more
> debugging work because you have more features.

Depends on what replay attacks you are talking about. If you are
more specific, I can talk about it.

Some of it is discussed at

	http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/usenet/scrm/robomod/robomod.html

	- Igor.





Thread