Re: Meganet on Cryptogram again
From: Michael Amling (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 09/19/03
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- Previous message: Jonathan Baker: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- In reply to: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet on Cryptogram again"
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet on Cryptogram again"
- Reply: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet on Cryptogram again"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:42:24 GMT
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Bruce Palmer writes:
>
>>Even if it was as secure as he claims the _last_ thing in the
>>world it is "friendly and practical". It's unwieldy as hell,
>>uses a GUI that defies explanation and would be totally alien
>>to any "average" Windows user who's familiar with the WIndows UI.
>>I'd hardly call that friendly or practical: it fails on both counts.
>
>
> Well, someone is buying it. Perhaps it has a pseduo-technical-looking
> GUI that appeals to people who don't know what to look for but want
> something that looks secure.
>
>
>>The only thing I'll say is that for any given encrypted file
>>it will accept numerous incorrect keys, not inform the user
>>that the key is bad, and generate total garbage for output.
>
> Is this bad or good?
It indicates that the software does not perform authentication.
Authentication is good.
--Mike Amling
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- Previous message: Jonathan Baker: "Re: Newbie question(s)..."
- In reply to: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet on Cryptogram again"
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet on Cryptogram again"
- Reply: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet on Cryptogram again"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|