Just how secure is PGP? - PGP

This is a discussion on Just how secure is PGP? - PGP ; In article John Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:20:05 +0200 (CEST), in article > , Nomen Nescio > wrote: > > > > >That plus the main problem with PGP is that it blows your privacy. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: Just how secure is PGP?

  1. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    In article
    John Smith wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:20:05 +0200 (CEST), in article
    > <2439d2a2758bb88659785aaa941d0c61@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >That plus the main problem with PGP is that it blows your privacy.

    >
    > Man, you are *so* stupid!!


    I hope you try saying that to the gang members who will be sodomizing
    you in prison after JBN blows your privacy.


  2. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:05 +0200 (CEST), in article
    <24b51e8e6c7a0cbb9ccb985e296cd984@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
    wrote:

    >
    >I hope you try saying that to the gang members who will be sodomizing
    >you in prison after JBN blows your privacy.


    You appear to have severe problems with your sexuality. Your continued
    references to homosexual activity have been noted.

  3. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    Tom McCune wrote:
    >There has never been anything found to substantiate rumor of a possible
    >back door in PGP. Although not a guarantee of the absence of such, a
    >very positive sign of being back door free is that the source code is
    >available for public review. All the algorithms available for use in PGP
    >appear secure, so there is no objective reason to think that NSA (or even
    >NASA!) can break PGP's encryption.



    According to this guy, even a 'local task force' can break encrypted text...


    From: Kristatos
    Newsgroups: alt.ipl.discussion
    Subject: Re: Whats a good way to wipe an HD?
    Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004
    Message-ID:

    Bugs Bunny wrote:
    :>Well, I do know that when the Pentagon wants to make absolutely 100% positively
    :>sure that data cannot be recovered, the take the drive apart and feed the
    :>platters into this really kewl platter-shredder thingy.

    Kristatos wrote:

    >I once took a tour of the local tasc force for cyber cr1mes. It was a
    >multi-jur1sdictional task force on cyber cr1me.. They had some
    >serious bandwidth going into the thing, and they had some pretty
    >surprising talent there as well..
    >
    >They talked about using kase tools to make a bit wise copy of the
    >computers hard drive, and then used that copy to invest1gate..
    >
    >I asked them if they were concerned about encryption, and they said
    >they never ran into anything they couldn't break.. They had an array
    >of machines that worked in parallel to crunch the encryption, and I
    >think they could crack the worst of them in a matter of months.
    >
    >Interesting ****, to say the least..





  4. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Andre wrote in
    news:2jg6e0lo5thpr5dpjh43onjcovmpogpqmd@4ax.com:

    >>There has never been anything found to substantiate rumor of a
    >>possible back door in PGP. Although not a guarantee of the absence of
    >>such, a very positive sign of being back door free is that the source
    >>code is available for public review. All the algorithms available for
    >>use in PGP appear secure, so there is no objective reason to think
    >>that NSA (or even NASA!) can break PGP's encryption.

    >
    >
    > According to this guy, even a 'local task force' can break encrypted
    > text...



    There are people who believe all kinds of fairly tales, but that does not
    make them so.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 8.1
    Comment: My PGP Page & FAQ: http://www.McCune.cc/PGP.htm

    iQEVAwUBQONLI2DeI9apM77TAQIPYgf7BmAh+TDHqyfrnD7kVL dsO5e0jwfrZHy/
    T6rHX0yQd2yA82eFVR2u7b8Shws5PrjWV23+F0li2CgwZyAoxu dLmnjc3JvW8Raj
    vEAQ8E5o0iV5tb5YG806ovigvTsu9yLPN18ZoNsLrV8nyXId7U 8/79wT5DYtjU6x
    9TXyKI7QomG+K0cdysojCjqqDyDbQAX+pY9uqAcjl2+DZq46UB fbEtDJTNvck6kJ
    N00R4ZYkuMu/hu6cFcnh73dq9w+edgd1kvRVCcrr5Ql58Hj7HsYT9aj7INYcHJ AH
    ztGAQAX0mni80SzYkaNCXgFdMTDaBKuF/ljRhV2SHg5zZauR5oBxrg==
    =nCxB
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  5. Re: Just how secure is PGP?


    "Tarapia Tapioco" wrote in message
    news:ca18308c6bdf7eecbcc03f7950959985@firenze.linu x.it...
    > yardleymj@yahoo.ca (Michael Yardley) wrote:
    >
    > > Reading the Usenet groups you see threads about back doors in PGP. Can
    > > it be read by the security services? Have back doors been left in the
    > > program so that the likes of the NASA can read what people are posting
    > > in say alt.anonymous.messages?

    >
    > Yes, NASA is decrypting your messages to find out if you are trying to
    > launch your own spacecraft without proper clearance.


    ROTFLMAO!!!!

    Orm



  6. Re: Just how secure is PGP?


    "John Smith" wrote in message
    news:1n03e0t1pl7hqdstlvl536och42frh439s@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:05 +0200 (CEST), in article
    > <24b51e8e6c7a0cbb9ccb985e296cd984@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >I hope you try saying that to the gang members who will be sodomizing
    > >you in prison after JBN blows your privacy.

    >
    > You appear to have severe problems with your sexuality. Your continued
    > references to homosexual activity have been noted.


    I have also noted this, John and will get right on it .... tracking this
    sick individual down. I will keep you in the know regarding future
    developments on this case. FYI and records, its Case #S78988607 .

    Orm Laplunk
    Sodomite Tracker Division
    Christians and Muslims Against Sodomy
    457 Cherry Road, Irvinc California





  7. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 20:20:00 -0700, in article
    <2no8r0F1vq84U1@uni-berlin.de>, "Ormond Laplunk"
    wrote:

    >
    >I have also noted this, John and will get right on it .... tracking this
    >sick individual down. I will keep you in the know regarding future
    >developments on this case. FYI and records, its Case #S78988607 .
    >
    >Orm Laplunk
    >Sodomite Tracker Division
    >Christians and Muslims Against Sodomy
    >457 Cherry Road, Irvinc California
    >


    LOL

  8. Re: Just how secure is PGP?


    "Michael Yardley" wrote in message
    news:858bd3a9.0406061139.4c951c68@posting.google.c om...
    > Reading the Usenet groups you see threads about back doors in PGP. Can
    > it be read by the security services? Have back doors been left in the
    > program so that the likes of the NASA can read what people are posting
    > in say alt.anonymous.messages?


    I suspect it has backdoors ever since Phil Zimmermann caved in under
    terrific pressure from the US Government.
    http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/philzima.html or
    http://www.spectacle.org/795/zimm.html

    I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip

    or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.

    Orm



  9. Re: Just how secure is PGP?


    "John Smith" wrote in message
    news:1n03e0t1pl7hqdstlvl536och42frh439s@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:05 +0200 (CEST), in article
    > <24b51e8e6c7a0cbb9ccb985e296cd984@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>I hope you try saying that to the gang members who will be sodomizing
    >>you in prison after JBN blows your privacy.

    >
    > You appear to have severe problems with your sexuality. Your continued
    > references to homosexual activity have been noted.


    Yes, John , we have had our eye Nomen Nescio and are tracking his movements.

    Orm Laplunk
    Sodomite Tracker Division
    Christians and Muslims Against Sodomy
    457 Cherry Road, Irvine, California






  10. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, "Ormond Laplunk" wrote:
    >"Michael Yardley" wrote in message
    >news:858bd3a9.0406061139.4c951c68@posting.google.c om...
    >> Reading the Usenet groups you see threads about back doors in PGP. Can
    >> it be read by the security services? Have back doors been left in the
    >> program so that the likes of the NASA can read what people are posting
    >> in say alt.anonymous.messages?

    >
    >I suspect it has backdoors ever since Phil Zimmermann caved in under
    >terrific pressure from the US Government.
    >http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/philzima.html or
    >http://www.spectacle.org/795/zimm.html
    >
    >I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    >http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip
    >
    >or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.
    >
    >Orm


    SHUT UP, CHRISTMAN
    We know that *YOU* are the source of that anti-PGP, anti-Reliable,
    anti-JBN FUD.
    And we know your motives:

    That's smoke screen to hide the incontrovertible fact:
    QS BLEW UP ITS USER'S PRIVACY 3 TIMES ALREADY

    By attacking safe programs like PGP, JBN, RELIABLE, you want to hide
    QS *real* flaws.
    Your defence is "like PGP/QS/RELIABLE, QS is getting bad press"
    The truth is: "unlike PGP/QS/RELIABLE, QS was *repeatedly* found at
    fault, and *really* blew up its users' privacy"

    Now, go away, you and your minions, sock puppets and goons.
    You'd get a better chance trying to *still* convince us that Iraq had
    weapons of mass destruction, and that Usama was Saddam's brother.


  11. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, "Ormond Laplunk" wrote:
    >"Michael Yardley" wrote in message
    >news:858bd3a9.0406061139.4c951c68@posting.google.c om...
    >> Reading the Usenet groups you see threads about back doors in PGP. Can
    >> it be read by the security services? Have back doors been left in the
    >> program so that the likes of the NASA can read what people are posting
    >> in say alt.anonymous.messages?

    >
    >I suspect it has backdoors ever since Phil Zimmermann caved in under
    >terrific pressure from the US Government.
    >http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/philzima.html or
    >http://www.spectacle.org/795/zimm.html
    >
    >I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    >http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip
    >
    >or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.
    >
    >Orm


    SHUT UP, CHRISTMAN
    We know that *YOU* are the source of that anti-PGP, anti-Reliable,
    anti-JBN FUD.
    And we know your motives:

    That's smoke screen to hide the incontrovertible fact:
    QS BLEW UP ITS USER'S PRIVACY 3 TIMES ALREADY

    By attacking safe programs like PGP, JBN, RELIABLE, you want to hide
    QS *real* flaws.
    Your defence is "like PGP/QS/RELIABLE, QS is getting bad press"
    The truth is: "unlike PGP/QS/RELIABLE, QS was *repeatedly* found at
    fault, and *really* blew up its users' privacy"

    Now, go away, you and your minions, sock puppets and goons.
    You'd get a better chance trying to *still* convince us that Iraq had
    weapons of mass destruction, and that Usama was Saddam's brother.


  12. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, "Ormond Laplunk" wrote:
    >"Michael Yardley" wrote in message
    >news:858bd3a9.0406061139.4c951c68@posting.google.c om...
    >> Reading the Usenet groups you see threads about back doors in PGP. Can
    >> it be read by the security services? Have back doors been left in the
    >> program so that the likes of the NASA can read what people are posting
    >> in say alt.anonymous.messages?

    >
    >I suspect it has backdoors ever since Phil Zimmermann caved in under
    >terrific pressure from the US Government.
    >http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/philzima.html or
    >http://www.spectacle.org/795/zimm.html
    >
    >I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    >http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip
    >
    >or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.
    >
    >Orm


    SHUT UP, CHRISTMAN
    We know that *YOU* are the source of that anti-PGP, anti-Reliable,
    anti-JBN FUD.
    And we know your motives:

    That's smoke screen to hide the incontrovertible fact:
    QS BLEW UP ITS USER'S PRIVACY 3 TIMES ALREADY

    By attacking safe programs like PGP, JBN, RELIABLE, you want to hide
    QS *real* flaws.
    Your defence is "like PGP/QS/RELIABLE, QS is getting bad press"
    The truth is: "unlike PGP/QS/RELIABLE, QS was *repeatedly* found at
    fault, and *really* blew up its users' privacy"

    Now, go away, you and your minions, sock puppets and goons.
    You'd get a better chance trying to *still* convince us that Iraq had
    weapons of mass destruction, and that Usama was Saddam's brother.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
    The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
    is unverified.



  13. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, "Ormond Laplunk" wrote:
    >"Michael Yardley" wrote in message
    >news:858bd3a9.0406061139.4c951c68@posting.google.c om...
    >> Reading the Usenet groups you see threads about back doors in PGP. Can
    >> it be read by the security services? Have back doors been left in the
    >> program so that the likes of the NASA can read what people are posting
    >> in say alt.anonymous.messages?

    >
    >I suspect it has backdoors ever since Phil Zimmermann caved in under
    >terrific pressure from the US Government.
    >http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/philzima.html or
    >http://www.spectacle.org/795/zimm.html
    >
    >I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    >http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip
    >
    >or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.
    >
    >Orm


    SHUT UP, CHRISTMAN
    We know that *YOU* are the source of that anti-PGP, anti-Reliable,
    anti-JBN FUD.
    And we know your motives:

    That's smoke screen to hide the incontrovertible fact:
    QS BLEW UP ITS USER'S PRIVACY 3 TIMES ALREADY

    By attacking safe programs like PGP, JBN, RELIABLE, you want to hide
    QS *real* flaws.
    Your defence is "like PGP/QS/RELIABLE, QS is getting bad press"
    The truth is: "unlike PGP/QS/RELIABLE, QS was *repeatedly* found at
    fault, and *really* blew up its users' privacy"

    Now, go away, you and your minions, sock puppets and goons.
    You'd get a better chance trying to *still* convince us that Iraq had
    weapons of mass destruction, and that Usama was Saddam's brother.


  14. Re: Just how secure is PGP?


    wrote in message

    > SHUT UP, CHRISTMAN
    > We know that *YOU* are the source of that anti-PGP, anti-Reliable,
    > anti-JBN FUD.
    > And we know your motives:


    You are crazy. My name is Ormond Laplunk and I live in Canada. Btw, who is
    "CHRISTMAN", some kind of nut who worships the bread god?

    Orm



  15. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, "Ormond Laplunk" wrote:
    >"Michael Yardley" wrote in message
    >news:858bd3a9.0406061139.4c951c68@posting.google.c om...
    >> Reading the Usenet groups you see threads about back doors in PGP. Can
    >> it be read by the security services? Have back doors been left in the
    >> program so that the likes of the NASA can read what people are posting
    >> in say alt.anonymous.messages?

    >
    >I suspect it has backdoors ever since Phil Zimmermann caved in under
    >terrific pressure from the US Government.
    >http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/philzima.html or
    >http://www.spectacle.org/795/zimm.html
    >
    >I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    >http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip
    >
    >or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.
    >
    >Orm


    SHUT UP, CHRISTMAN
    We know that *YOU* are the source of that anti-PGP, anti-Reliable,
    anti-JBN FUD.
    And we know your motives:

    That's smoke screen to hide the incontrovertible fact:
    QS BLEW UP ITS USER'S PRIVACY 3 TIMES ALREADY

    By attacking safe programs like PGP, JBN, RELIABLE, you want to hide
    QS *real* flaws.
    Your defence is "like PGP/JBN/RELIABLE, QS is getting bad press"
    The truth is: "unlike PGP/JBN/RELIABLE, QS was *repeatedly* found at
    fault, and *really* blew up its users' privacy"

    Now, go away, you and your minions, sock puppets and goons.
    You'd get a better chance trying to *still* convince us that Iraq had
    weapons of mass destruction, and that Usama was Saddam's brother.


  16. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, "Ormond Laplunk" wrote:
    >"Michael Yardley" wrote in message
    >news:858bd3a9.0406061139.4c951c68@posting.google.c om...
    >> Reading the Usenet groups you see threads about back doors in PGP. Can
    >> it be read by the security services? Have back doors been left in the
    >> program so that the likes of the NASA can read what people are posting
    >> in say alt.anonymous.messages?

    >
    >I suspect it has backdoors ever since Phil Zimmermann caved in under
    >terrific pressure from the US Government.
    >http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/philzima.html or
    >http://www.spectacle.org/795/zimm.html
    >
    >I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    >http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip
    >
    >or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.
    >
    >Orm


    SHUT UP, CHRISTMAN
    We know that *YOU* are the source of that anti-PGP, anti-Reliable,
    anti-JBN FUD.
    And we know your motives:

    That's smoke screen to hide the incontrovertible fact:
    QS BLEW UP ITS USER'S PRIVACY 3 TIMES ALREADY

    By attacking safe programs like PGP, JBN, RELIABLE, you want to hide
    QS *real* flaws.
    Your defence is "like PGP/JBN/RELIABLE, QS is getting bad press"
    The truth is: "unlike PGP/JBN/RELIABLE, QS was *repeatedly* found at
    fault, and *really* blew up its users' privacy"

    Now, go away, you and your minions, sock puppets and goons.
    You'd get a better chance trying to *still* convince us that Iraq had
    weapons of mass destruction, and that Usama was Saddam's brother.







  17. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: RIPEMD160

    "Ormond Laplunk"
    дϢ:2tqfkfF235bu3U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    > http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip
    >
    > or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.
    >
    > Orm


    PGP 2.63i only supports v3 sigs, and it doesn't support MDC, so it's
    internally less secure than current versions of PGP and GnuPG.

    Anyway, you can dig into the source if you don't trust GnuPG.

    - --
    Zuxy
    Beauty is truth,
    While truth is beauty.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.3.91 (MingW32)

    iGMEAREDACMFAkF6HAQFgwDtTgAWGGhrcDovL3N1YmtleXMucG dwLm5ldAAKCRDv
    AMJ46FVe1gLFAJ9N1xUJOGKpwRVzPIKrbZHiLCLtfgCgvsgxFD 6DYykFR5fsVfXB
    bjUxCyI=
    =eJwc
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




  18. Re: Just how secure is PGP?


    "Zuxy" wrote in message news:cld68l$1vbc$1@mail.cn99.com...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: RIPEMD160
    >
    > "Ormond Laplunk"
    > дϢ:2tqfkfF235bu3U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >>
    >> I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    >> http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip
    >>
    >> or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.
    >>
    >> Orm

    >
    > PGP 2.63i only supports v3 sigs, and it doesn't support MDC, so it's
    > internally less secure than current versions of PGP and GnuPG.
    >
    > Anyway, you can dig into the source if you don't trust GnuPG.


    Good point and Itrust GnuPG and use it exclusively along with some other
    things such as A-Lock for quick secure text messages.


    Orm



  19. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, "Ormond Laplunk" wrote:
    >"Michael Yardley" wrote in message
    >news:858bd3a9.0406061139.4c951c68@posting.google.c om...
    >> Reading the Usenet groups you see threads about back doors in PGP. Can
    >> it be read by the security services? Have back doors been left in the
    >> program so that the likes of the NASA can read what people are posting
    >> in say alt.anonymous.messages?

    >
    >I suspect it has backdoors ever since Phil Zimmermann caved in under
    >terrific pressure from the US Government.
    >http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/philzima.html or
    >http://www.spectacle.org/795/zimm.html
    >
    >I would venture that the only relatively safe version is PGP263i
    >http://www.pgpi.org/cgi/download.cgi...me=pgp263i.zip
    >
    >or you could use GnuPG 1.2.2 instead.
    >
    >Orm


    SHUT UP, CHRISTMAN
    We know that *YOU* are the source of that anti-PGP, anti-Reliable,
    anti-JBN FUD.
    And we know your motives:

    That's smoke screen to hide the incontrovertible fact:
    QS BLEW UP ITS USER'S PRIVACY 3 TIMES ALREADY

    By attacking safe programs like PGP, JBN, RELIABLE, you want to hide
    QS *real* flaws.
    Your defence is "like PGP/JBN/RELIABLE, QS is getting bad press"
    The truth is: "unlike PGP/JBN/RELIABLE, QS was *repeatedly* found at
    fault, and *really* blew up its users' privacy"

    Now, go away, you and your minions, sock puppets and goons.
    You'd get a better chance trying to *still* convince us that Iraq had
    weapons of mass destruction, and that Usama was Saddam's brother.


  20. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    Ormond Laplunk wrote:
    > "John Smith" wrote in message
    > news:1n03e0t1pl7hqdstlvl536och42frh439s@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:05 +0200 (CEST), in article
    >><24b51e8e6c7a0cbb9ccb985e296cd984@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I hope you try saying that to the gang members who will be sodomizing
    >>>you in prison after JBN blows your privacy.

    >>
    >>You appear to have severe problems with your sexuality. Your continued
    >>references to homosexual activity have been noted.

    >
    >
    > Yes, John , we have had our eye Nomen Nescio and are tracking his movements.
    >
    > Orm Laplunk
    > Sodomite Tracker Division
    > Christians and Muslims Against Sodomy
    > 457 Cherry Road, Irvine, California
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    LOL

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast