Re: 256 Bit Encryption for Secure Email and Secure Online File Storage

2001-12-03 Thread Bill Stewart

At 04:31 PM 12/01/2001 -0800, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
>Another proprietary key format. Why not base such a system on OpenPGP?

OpenPGP, ClosedPGP, GPG, PGP2.x, and X.509 all have blazingly ugly data 
formats,
especially for keys.  The main advantages of recycling one of the
N variations on PGP formats or one of the K variations on X.509
are that you can reuse code, and in some cases you can gain compatibility
with existing user bases.  On the other hand, you can gain compatibility
with existing user bases by letting PGP users sign messages saying
"My Cryptoheaven Public Key For Messages is  and for Signatures is 
"
and similarly letting X.509 users do the same if they want.
It's not automated, but it can work ok.

Also, of course, you'd need to register the Rijndael and SHA-256
entities onto the **PG** formatspaces, but they're generally designed for it.

The cleanest key format I've seen is in CryptoKong - it has the
advantage that Elliptic Curve cryptosystems let you use short keys,
at least if you believe that the math works adequately,
and it's not trying to use any "KeyID" as an abbreviation for the key,
so it's just a simple direct encoding of the key,
without PGP's annoyances of KeyID lookup and risks of KeyID forgery.
Of course, it's also not mapping KeyIDs to users, only to messages,
so if you want to maintain relationships between them,
you've got to do it yourself, and if you want to have
senders of some messages vet senders of other messages,
you need to track the messages yourself.  James Donald's implementation
uses an Evil Microsoft Access database to save messages,
but you could do a different implementation if you wanted to.

Was the real motivation for using their own format simplicity?
Or not-invented-here-ness?  Or not-thinking-ness?
Or unwillingness to wade through the huge amount of existing ugly code
just for compatibility with existing ugly formats?
Does it matter much?  They're in the Software / Internet Services business,
so either they'll find a niche where they get lots of users
(in which case it's worth reviewing their code for real security),
or they'll fail to do so and Darwin Will Get Them,
like so many other projects out there, or they'll end up with a
small but fanatic group of users who keep them going,
or somebody will discover a Serious Bug which will blow away their security
(though they do have at least semi-open source available for review.)




Re: 256 Bit Encryption for Secure Email and Secure Online File Storage

2001-12-02 Thread Jonny Weron

>Another proprietary key format. Why not base such a system on OpenPGP?
>
>Hmm. AES-256 with SHA-256? Children, what's wrong with the balance
>in this system?
>
>How does a user verify authenticity of another user's public key?
>
>Aside from being incompatible with anything else on the net, how is this
>different or more secure than Hushmail? Than Cryptomail.org?


The AES-256 is used independently from SHA-256 and for a different purpose.  
One is used for encryption, the other for hashing.  If you’d like to match 
crypto level provided by the hash, you would have to apply something like 
SHA-512, but that is irrelevant.  SHA-256 is a convenient way of hashing 
passphrases into 256-bit symmetric key-material used to initialize key 
vectors in the AES.  I would suggest you should look into the source code 
(available from the http://www.cryptoheaven.com";>CryptoHeaven 
web site) before making such trivial but misleading comments.
Also, proprietary key format is not such a bad idea as long as the source is 
open for review.  OpenPGP standard involves much more than simple RSA key, 
and any software using it is prone to the possible errors that may come with 
it.  Making a simpler key format with only the very things that are 
necessary make it easier to maintain and it is easier to verify correctness 
of implementation.

So what about Hushmail you ask.  For one, CryptoHeaven does not require you 
to send your encrypted private key to the server making CryptoHeaven a much 
more secure solution.  Furthermore, CryptoHeaven includes things like secure 
multi party folder sharing and multi user discussions which are not 
available in other systems.




_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp




Re: 256 Bit Encryption for Secure Email and Secure Online File Storage

2001-12-02 Thread CDR Anonymizer

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--=_NextPart_000_0006_01C17AEB.9F8D37E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The AES-256 is used independently from SHA-256 and for a different
purpose.  One is used for encryption, the other for hashing.  If you'd
like to match crypto level provided by the hash, you would have to apply
something like SHA-512, but that is irrelevant.  SHA-256 is a convenient
way of hashing passphrases into 256-bit symmetric key-material used to
initialize key vectors in the AES.  I would suggest you should look into
the source code before making such trivial but misleading comments.
Also, proprietary key format is not such a bad idea as long as the
source is open for review.  OpenPGP standard involves much more than
simple RSA key, and any software using it is prone to the possible
errors that may come with it.  Making a simpler key format with only the
very things that are necessary make it easier to maintain and it is
easier to verify correctness of implementation.
 
So what about Hushmail you ask.  For one, CryptoHeaven does not require
you to send your encrypted private key to the server making CryptoHeaven
a much more secure solution.  Furthermore, CryptoHeaven includes things
like secure multi party folder sharing and multi user discussions which
are not available in other systems.
 
 
> Another proprietary key format. Why not base such a system on OpenPGP?
> 
> Hmm. AES-256 with SHA-256? Children, what's wrong with the balance
> in this system?
> 
> How does a user verify authenticity of another user's public key?
> 
> Aside from being incompatible with anything else on the net, how is
this
> different or more secure than Hushmail? Than Cryptomail.org?
 

--=_NextPart_000_0006_01C17AEB.9F8D37E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";>








cid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>









The AES-256 is used independently from =
SHA-256 and for a different purpose.  One is used for encryption, the =
other for hashing.  If =
you’d like to match crypto level provided by the hash, you would =
have to apply something like SHA-512, but that is irrelevant.  SHA-256 is a convenient way of =
hashing passphrases into 256-bit symmetric key-material =
used to initialize key vectors in the AES.  I would suggest you should look =
into the source code before making such trivial but misleading =
comments.Also, proprietary key format is not such a =
bad idea as long as the source is open for review.  OpenPGP standard involves much more than simple =
RSA key, and any software using it is prone to the possible errors that =
may come with it.  Making a =
simpler key format with only the very things that are necessary make it =
easier to maintain and it is easier to verify correctness of =
implementation. So what about Hushmail you ask.  For one, CryptoHeaven does not =
require you to send your encrypted private key to the server making =
CryptoHeaven a much more secure solution.  Furthermore, CryptoHeaven =
includes things like secure multi party folder sharing and multi user =
discussions which are not available in other =
systems.  > Another proprietary key format. Why not =
base such a system on OpenPGP?> =
> Hmm. AES-256 with SHA-256? Children, =
what's wrong with the balance> in this =
system?> =
> How does a user verify authenticity of =
another user's public key?> =
> Aside from being incompatible with =
anything else on the net, h

Re: 256 Bit Encryption for Secure Email and Secure Online File Storage

2001-12-01 Thread Meyer Wolfsheim

Another proprietary key format. Why not base such a system on OpenPGP?

Hmm. AES-256 with SHA-256? Children, what's wrong with the balance in this
system?

How does a user verify authenticity of another user's public key?

Aside from being incompatible with anything else on the net, how is this
different or more secure than Hushmail? Than Cryptomail.org?


-MW-

On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Adam: Kurzawa wrote:

> Hey, I don't know how many of you have seen this?  But here it is
> anyway,  what do you guys think?
>
>
> CryptoHeaven is a new, secure online service released by CryptoHeaven
> Development Team.  The product is intended for individuals in need of
> security and privacy working together in small groups.
>
> CryptoHeaven is the only secure online system currently integrating
> secure email, secure instant messaging (with multi party support),
> secure online file storage & file sharing in one unique package.
>
> Our services are available over the internet from anywhere, anytime.
> Automatic key and contact management ensures you can use your account
> from any computer connected to the internet. An easy to use, integrated
> user interface capable of running on most current computers ensures that
> all services are always available, regardless of where you may be.
>
> Your privacy is at all times protected with the highest level
> cryptography available: 256 bit symmetric key and 2048-4096 bit
> asymmetric keys.  The level of security offered is unmatched in the
> industry.
>
> Free and premium accounts are available.  Take it for a test drive and
> invite your friends to try it too.
>
> CryptoHeaven is confident in its system, and as such we release the
> source code to any interested party for a review, free of charge.
>
> http://www.cryptoheaven.com