Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
Kent Borg wrote: > Requiring them to take active measures in advance of the communication > (MitM attacks) or even afterwards (human intervention) harms their > economics *enormously*. Orders of magnitude. What harm? The NSA has an effectively unlimited budget. The only real cost is time and that's short-circuited by knowing precisely where the weaknesses are in commercial-grade ciphers like RSA and AES. If your foes include lesser organizations then maybe you are correct. It depends on what resources they have to bring to bear. > Let's make it harder. Yes, a web of trusted certificates is hard to > make air tight. Okay, don't insist it be air tight. If end-to-end > encryption started to became common, even on a hodge-podge of > self-signed certificates, the howls of protest from the spies would > become deafening: because it would make their task much, much harder. Y'know... this was me 25 years ago. I was dismissed as a crackpot. The vindication is bitter-sweet. -- Rich P.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |