cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-04-15 - Re: Introducing newbies to encryption (was: Re: anonymous credit)

Header Data

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: enystrom@aurora.nscee.edu (Eric Nystrom)
Message Hash: 444a2a96189817600f9ad2e7daca9a8bcbba3a64ae834df82d9166e7f1b481d3
Message ID: <199704150718.CAA23959@manifold.algebra.com>
Reply To: <Pine.CVX.3.91.970414204503.6444A-100000@aurora.nscee.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1997-04-15 07:21:02 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:21:02 -0700 (PDT)

Raw message

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: enystrom@aurora.nscee.edu (Eric Nystrom)
Subject: Re: Introducing newbies to encryption (was: Re: anonymous credit)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.CVX.3.91.970414204503.6444A-100000@aurora.nscee.edu>
Message-ID: <199704150718.CAA23959@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Eric Nystrom wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
> 
> > Multiuser Unix Security == No Security.
> > 
> > Your users may have illusions, but not true security.
> > 
> > First thing I'd suggest is to explain them that nothing that goes through 
> > that central unix machine is truly secure.
> 
> It's absolutely true that nothing on a centralized Unix machine is truly 
> secure.  However, is abandoning all pretenses of crypto and security in 
> favor of holding out for a utopian ideal really the best solution?  Does 
> using encryption for email on multiuser machines actually hurt the cause 
> of the security community in the long run?
> 

I would not call it truly "utopian". There is not much that's needed to
achieve reasonable personal security, protecting from attacks from the
Internet  -- an individual (pesonal) computer system that offers no
internet services. Could be bought for $300 or less.

	- Igor.

Thread