Re: MessageID wording paranoia

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 25, 1998 at 07:26:16PM -0800, William Lewis wrote:

> I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that
> attempting to write this specification to completely
> disallow subliminal/covert channels is a fool's errand.
> It's already necessary that the PGP implementation be
> trusted. Adding requirements such as this one (specifying
> that the MessageID be externally verifiable) makes the
> spec more complicated and more difficult to implement, but
> doesn't actually increase security at all.

I completely agree.  But those parts of the spec which are
already trying to shut down such channels should be
written in a more thorough fashion.  I'd be quite happy
with _random_ Message IDs - if an implementation has a bad
random generator, you are in trouble anyways.

tlr
-- 
Thomas Roessler · 74a353cc0b19 · dg1ktr · http://home.pages.de/~roessler/
     2048/CE6AC6C1 · 4E 04 F0 BC 72 FF 14 23 44 85 D1 A1 3B B0 73 C1