While this might seem perfect, it is silly in my opinion.
If a company trying to make a thing harder happens to
make it easy, then I have no trust in the company, and
the doubts I've had on keys I'll have on algorithms.
The problem with MS and others is that given that crypto is
a "niverqla"' science and that there are so many open studies,
there is no justification of a "closed" product that does crypto.
so what I ask MS is not to provide me wit a way to encrypt my data, but
with a way to enable me to use their products with my encryption software.
and that's where they fail to give me a answer.
MS, Checkpoint and others are no encryption experts, so I don't want
them to encrypt any data of mine, as I don't want them to controll my fridge,
my TV, ... They claim to provide easy to use software? so, why do anything
else, that's enough if it is ver true (which I doubt).
The only motivation behind any encryption software from these companies is
that they work for unfriendly organizations such as the NSA/MOSSAD/whatever
[claim: mouss and his moussad has no relation with the mossad. a 'u' is a big
thing!]
I only want this: APIs to do what I want, not what they want...
cheers,
mouss
At 14:23 01/12/00 -0600, Larry Paul wrote:
>This now makes sense. If the NSA can replace the key, anyone can and hence
>strengthen their security. For example: only A and B have the same embedded
>key & can communicate securly. Is this correct?
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
