From: Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:21:55 +0800
To: willday@rom.oit.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: Hackers invade DOJ web site
In-Reply-To: <199608201554.LAA04383@rom.oit.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <199608210329.DAA00542@fountainhead.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> A short time ago, at a computer terminal far, far away, Frank Stuart wrote:
> >however, I think those in a position to do so should start with the spin
> >control.  Some suggestions:
> >
> >   The fact that even the U.S. Justice Department is unable to adequately
> >   protect it's own site from intruders underscores the need for widely-
> >   available strong encryption.
> >
> >   While this is certainly a major embarrassment for the Justice Department,
> >   at least the mandatory "key escrow" program the Clinton administration is
> >   insisting upon has not yet been implemented; no private citizens' data
> >   appears to have been compromised this time.
> >
> >   It's doubtful that a new law or government bureaucracy would have prevented
> >   this from happening but it's entirely possible that tools such as strong
> >   encryption could have.  It's ironic that the U.S. Government is focusing on
> >   the former while fighting use of the latter.
> 
> I understand how it affects their claim for the security of escrowed
> keys, but I'm afraid I don't follow the other argument.  How would the
> wide availability of strong encryption have helped prevent the breakin?
> How would encryption in general prevent breakins?  I'd love to use this
> as an argument for strong encryption, but I don't see how it really
> applies.

I think its a DOJ's doing. They prolly want to show the courts how
bad hackers can get so they can conjure up some support in forthcomming
trials. C'mon the sysadmins aren't fools, they surely see their own site.

- Vipul
vipul@pobox.com