| >Briefly, it works like this: point A transmits an encrypted message to point
| >B. Point B can decrypt this, if it knows the password. The decrypted text is
| >then sent back to point A, which can verify the decryption, and confirm that
| >point B really does know point A's password. Point A the
>The description has virtually nothing to do with the actual algorithm
>proposed. Follow the link in the article - http://www.stealth-attacks.info/ -
>for an actual - if informal - description.
>
>
There is no actual description publically available (there are three
completely different proto
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> (Either this is a really bad idea or the details have been mangled by the
> Register).
No, it's just a really bad idea. A small group of us looked at this a few
weeks ago when it was announced, and while none of us are professional
cryptographers, we
On 2005-03-03T11:52:59+, ken wrote:
>
> >Chat is already higher volume (I read somewhere) in
> >raw quantity of messages sent than email.
>
> I suspect you don't get much traffic. The beauty of a
> non-real-time store-and-forward system like smtp (or SMS, or
> oldstyle conferencing systems
My view - as controversial as ever - is that the problem
is unfixable, and mail will eventually fade away. That
which will take its place is p2p / IM / chat / SMS based.
Which are easier to spam and less secure than smtp.
SMTP is p2p by definition, though you can use servers if you want.
SMS *IS*
