[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MessageID wording paranoia



In <3.0.3.32.19980325135801.00b59ac0@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, on 03/25/98 
   at 04:58 PM, Jon Callas <jon@xxxxxxx> said:

>An excellent point -- there needs to be clarification there. I've added
>text that says, "...it MUST be computed from the finished (encrypted,
>signed, etc.) message in a deterministic fashion..."

>How's that?

I had not thought of leaking key data this way. If the group feels this is
a real concern couldn't the same type of "leaking" be done with the
"boundary" in the MIME headers?

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/esecure.html                        
---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: You said Windows was a Power Tool???

Attachment: pgp00034.pgp
Description: PGP signature