1996-10-03 - Re: FUCK!!!!!!;-)

Header Data

From: dustman@athensnet.com (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 88c0087eb7e9337260f325a5cf16db720ed125e13d90f7446a98fd304e52c53f
Message ID: <199610030803.EAA18153@porky.athensnet.com>
Reply To: <v03007800ae787c226c62@[206.119.69.46]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-03 10:47:31 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 18:47:31 +0800

Raw message

From: dustman@athensnet.com (Anonymous)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 18:47:31 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FUCK!!!!!!;-)
In-Reply-To: <v03007800ae787c226c62@[206.119.69.46]>
Message-ID: <199610030803.EAA18153@porky.athensnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


+ --- begin forwarded text
+ 
+ "Keys" are strings of computer code that lock and unlock data.   Key recovery
+ is an approach that permits the recovery of lost or  damaged keys without the
+ need to store or "escrow"  them with a third party.  This approach could also
+ meet the needs of law enforcement to act under the authority of a court order
+ without risking the  confidentiality of business data.

Just wondering how much of a problem "damaged keys" really are in
practice.  Is this something specific to Microsoft filesystems or
really cheap tape drives?  I've never seen that problem under Unix,
and something like a private RSA key doesn't change very often, so you
would expect to have encrypted copies of it on many backup tapes.

Or maybe this journalist, like most, doesn't know what the fuck he's
talking about?






Thread