1996-12-01 - Re: Announcement: Very Good Privacy

Header Data

From: jonathon <grafolog@netcom.com>
To: “Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>
Message Hash: cb07be2858bc858f048986ca9c07c0855f33e0cb14e696962581dd8d7d1bec1b
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961201061050.6961C-100000@netcom23>
Reply To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961130131239.357A-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-01 06:24:57 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 22:24:57 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: jonathon <grafolog@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 22:24:57 -0800 (PST)
To: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Very Good Privacy
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961130131239.357A-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961201061050.6961C-100000@netcom23>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, jonathon wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Mark Rosen wrote:
> > > 	I have written an encryption program called Very Good Privacy 
> > 	Trademark violation here.   Probably not a good thing.
> Nope.  "Pretty Good" is trademarked, but "Very Good" isn't.

	Very Good Privacy is violating the trademark of Pretty Good
	Privacy.   At least this is a simple, straightforward 
	easy to see and easier to sue on violation than most 
	other trademark violation cases are.

> > 	I'm not sure how an encryption product that uses encryption
> > 	algorithms weaker than Pretty Good Privacy can be described
> Both programs use IDEA.  How is this weaker?

	IDEA & RC4 were the only algorithms listed that AC2
	doesn't list 
	as having a security flaw.  And that isn't even true, if 
	one considers "weak keys" to be a security flaw, for IDEA.
	Some of the others are breakable on the fly, by a human.	

> RC4 has stood up to cryptanalysis.  It's secure as long as the same key
> isn't used twice.

	"Not used twice" is the operative phrase.



	SpamByte:  The amount of spam Sanford Wallace sends to AOL
		   in one 24 hour period.  
		   Roughly 1 000 Terabytes sent every 24 hours.  

	T3 Connection:   The connection that AOL needs to deal with 
		the spam Sanford Wallaces send to them in one day,
		so that legitimate users can contact people at AOL.