Re: People posting codes
From: John E. Hadstate (jh113355_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/25/04
- Previous message: John E. Hadstate: "Re: Crytanalysis"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: People posting codes"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: People posting codes"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: People posting codes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:26:33 -0500
"Tom St Denis" <tomstdenis@iahu.ca> wrote in message
news:QFgQb.112405$7JB1.110802@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>
> I missed parts of this thread but from what you quoted....
>
> If you're going to roll your own crypto at least do it right. Removing
> formatting from the signatures/mac is just asking for trouble. All of the
> data into the system should be accounted for.
>
The way I read his original post, he was trying to account for the fact that
some mail clients re-wrap the lines before sending, effectively re-ordering
the characters and destroying any signature that you might compute. What's
worse, the line-length is usually user-adjustable, thereby negating any
possibility that you might hack around it.
There are several kluges around this problem that have been enshrined in
RFC's. The most general solution is to create the encrypted, signed,
encoded message and then send it as an attachment or as a new mime-type.
- Previous message: John E. Hadstate: "Re: Crytanalysis"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: People posting codes"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: People posting codes"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: People posting codes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|