Re: Barcode Email
From: Ari Silversteinn (abcarisilverstein_at_yahoo.comxyz)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 10:21:52 -0400
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 01:18:24 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
>> Horribly flawed would be proportional to the adversary, this is not
>> designed for NSA quality attacks.
> It's not even good enough to protect credit card info. Would you access
> an e-commerce site with a browser that does less than 128-bit encryption?
This is not credit card quality info either.
>>>>It also eliminates passphrases in the self
>>>>decode model or non self decode (they would be optional).
>>> Sweet! Decryption without any secrets! An encryption algorithm where
>>> the ciphertext is self-decrypting -- gee, I'm speechless. Why do I get
>>> the impression someone here is missing the whole point of encryption?
>> The point is that there is a market for low level "encryption" that is
>> easily understood by the general public who sees barcodes every day of
>> their lives. They really don't understand how a barcode is made or read,
>> necessarily, but they trust them. Remember, we are looking at a business
>> concept, saleability is key. I could care less if Bruce Sheiner likes the
>> concept or not. lol
> Bar codes aren't a security system at all, they're just a way to make
> information on containers easy for scanners to read. This is totally
> unnecessary for email, since the information is already in the computer.
I'm aware, read the thread, you came in late.
-- Drop the alphabet for email