On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:14:30PM -0500, Andrew Berg wrote: > Peter Todd wrote: > > The *only* thing included in the hash is what is between the START > > and END bits, that's it, no headers no nothing. I'm not positive, > > but I belive the MIME based PGP is pretty similar. Of course, this > > means that you can fake the headers without invalidating the > > signature... > Can that really do any harm? Besides, of course, confusing a novice > recipient.
Depends. I have a little system setup on my email that allows me to create a specially formatted email that will trigger a procmail script that appends the email to a file. In my case I rely completely on security by obscurity, if the email is formatted correctly, anyone can append to that file. But suppose I considered it important for only me to be able to trigger that script. So I decide to reply on digital signatures. A naive setup, that simply appended anything that verified correctly, could allow the attacker to easilly disrupt the setup with tonnes of bogus messages. A basic replay attack. And besides, confusing a novice is the source of the highly disrupting worms and trojans that are allowing spammers to operate so freely... -- http://petertodd.ca
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
