[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: self-decrypting messages
>
> An interesting idea, although highly unpracticable. Sending a binary
> is nearly impossible. As an example, I have at my disposal (and I log
> into regularly) at least 6 different platforms. All Unix, but each
> one would require its own binary!
I assume you mean embedded binary (under radix 64). In Unix land,
uudecode could be assumed or a script version of radix decoding
could run against itself.
You are quite correct in assumption of platform. This is a bummer.
The ubiquity of DOS makes this a bother rather than a block. (I'll
bet even you at least _see_ a DOS box occasionally! :)
>
> This doesn't mean that your idea has no merit. On the other hand, it
> is an interesting key distribution model. Except there are a number
> of problems that I can see. First, anything you know about the person
> is something that someone else could probably do a little research and
> find out as well. This inherently means it is not a very secure
> channel, rather it is only moderately secure.
"Ida, remember our last conversation.... who were we talking
about? (Please provide full name properly capitalized.)"
"Ida, you and I were reading the newspaper in the break room the
other day. We discussed a point of mutual interest. What was it?"
The less intimately I know the recipient, the tougher it is to
formulate a good question.
I agree, moderately secure.
>
> Also, there is no way to meet your goal of "no external binary
> needed." There may be a few things you can do in lieu of this, but
> all of them require some knowledge of the recipient hardware system.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. :(
> But in a case such as mine, even that wouldn't help (do you send it
> for an RT, Vax, Decmips, RS6000, Alpha, Linux, Sun386i, Next, ...?)
>
> Like I said, its an interesting key distribution model, but I do not
> see any way to realize it under your assumptions.
>
> -derek
>
>