Re: New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dreamed of"

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Brian Riley <brianbr@together.net> writes:
>  I would be almost as inclined to think that a company using PGP5.5
> with a forced encrypted to (company) self in addition to whomever else
> ... might even put up a bigger fuss about passing out their 'master
> key' to Freeh-dumb et al. than many CP individuals ...

There already exist a number of procedures for the Feds to extract
information from companies.  They serve a warrant requesting the
key/information, etc.  The company hands the information over.
Happens all the time.

>   ... another passing thought, could the anticipated implementation of
> this have had anything to do with removal of the 'conventional
> encryption' options in PGP5 ????

You could do GAK with conventional encryption too, with a bit of work.
Perhaps they just elected to remove that option rather than do that
bit of work.  Conventional encryption doesn't get used that much for
email, though it does see a bit of use with certain parts of type-I
remailer reply blocks.

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`