Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"?
john.dlugosz@kodak.com Wed, 14 August 2002 14:48 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11843 for <openpgp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:48:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g7EEej920752 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kodakr.kodak.com (kodakr.kodak.com [192.232.119.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7EEeiw20746 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:40:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from knotes.kodak.com (knotes2.ko.kodak.com [150.221.122.53]) by kodakr.kodak.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7EEfJO24386 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:41:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>
Subject: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"?
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000
Message-ID: <OF94CAB39F.FCF0A0BA-ON86256C15.00507ACA@kodak.com>
From: john.dlugosz@kodak.com
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:40:39 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on KNOTES2/ISBP/EKC(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 08/14/2002 10:40:42 AM, Serialize complete at 08/14/2002 10:40:42 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0050A08D86256C15_="
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>
In http://netscape.com.com/2100-1105-949506.html?type=pt there is a vague mention of a problem: Schneier released information Monday about a separate flaw in the PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) program that is freely available and used to encrypt messages sent over the Internet. Schneier and Jonathan Katz of the University of Maryland at College Park found a way an attacker could intercept a PGP encrypted message, modify it without decrypting it, dupe the user into sending it back, and retrieve the original message Does anybody know more about this? Can a minor improvement to the new -bis draft fix it? --John
- Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? john.dlugosz
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Derek Atkins
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Rodney Thayer
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Derek Atkins
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Marc Mutz
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? john.dlugosz
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Jon Callas
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Lutz Donnerhacke
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Rodney Thayer
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Adam Back
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Carl Ellison
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Dominikus Scherkl
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Peter Gutmann
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Werner Koch
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? David Hopwood
- Re: Anybody know details about Schneier's "flaw"? Peter Gutmann