Re: [openpgp] signed/encrypted emails vs unsigned/unencrypted headers

comments, anyone?

On 03/07/13 00:22, Ximin Luo wrote:
> To openpgp@ietf.org,
> 
> As per [1] and [2], sign-then-encrypt is only really secure as long as you do
> it on *all* the information that forms the message, some of which might be
> external to the message data itself. Crucially, this includes the recipient.
> 
> What's the current status of this in the PGP/MIME standard? Is it still a
> problem? I notice that email subject headers are in a similar situation, and
> users have complained about it.[3] The problem of unencrypted/unauthenticated
> recipient is less obvious, so I haven't seen user complaints, but potentially
> it is more serious.
> 
> Although not explicitly mentioned in the previous citations, these are
> conceptually the same problem - i.e. you are only executing sign-then-encrypt
> on *part* of the data that should be secured. So, I believe that it's possible
> to work towards a single clean solution that fixes both problems.
> 
> (Sorry if this has been asked before already, or if the problem has already
> been fixed; I did check the list archives but couldn't find anything on a quick
> scan, nor a quick session of web searching.)
> 
> X
> 
> [1]
> http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/5458/should-we-sign-then-encrypt-or-encrypt-then-sign
> [2] http://world.std.com/~dtd/sign_encrypt/sign_encrypt7.html#CITEpgp
> [3] http://www.mozilla-enigmail.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=328
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> openpgp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
> 

-- 
GPG: 4096R/5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0
https://bitbucket.org/infinity0
https://launchpad.net/~infinity0

Re: [openpgp] signed/encrypted emails vs unsigned/unencrypted headers

Attachment: signature.asc