From: Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 6dd17ec71bcac185129ba567aaae7047c52481b786c373dd59f50a29cb555560
Message ID: <35EBEC0F.3EE4869E@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
Reply To: <001001bdd5a0$b7cef800$7b0000c8@chrome>
UTC Datetime: 1998-09-01 12:45:13 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 05:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 05:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is it true that PGP 5.X is not secure?
In-Reply-To: <001001bdd5a0$b7cef800$7b0000c8@chrome>
Message-ID: <35EBEC0F.3EE4869E@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lars Weitze wrote:
>
> There are still rumors about that...
My humble knowledge does not permit my answering your question.
However, I suppose your question is problematical. It is difficult
to define security, or more precisely a scientifcally rigorous
measure of security. I don't think that it is sensible to talk about
absolute security without reference to a context (environment). In
my view there is no 'perfect' encryption system in the practical
world. If by 'not secure' you meant something that malicious persons
have secretely manipulated to cause you damage, then I also don't
know but I guess that to be highly unlikely, given the good historical
record of PGP.
M. K. Shen
Return to September 1998
Return to “Steve Bryan <sbryan@vendorsystems.com>”