Just how secure is PGP? - PGP

This is a discussion on Just how secure is PGP? - 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Just how secure is PGP?

  1. 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.


  2. 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.



  3. Re: Just how secure is PGP?

    original message
    No. There are plenty of morons who attempt to spread FUD (Fear,
    Uncertainty and Doubt) among the newbies, but there are no backdoors
    in PGP. There are no secret govenrment keys, no hidden algorithms.

    The source code is freely available, and is covered in excruciating
    detail by any number of security experts and programmers hoping to
    get global recognition by finding a weakness and publishing it.

    Provided the user uses a decent passphrase, and takes precautions
    against keyloggers and other "password grabbers", anything secured
    by PGP is secure well beyond the users lifetime.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    I agree that its very unlikely that there are any backdoors in pgp
    but people seem to be overlooking the fact that although the source
    code is freely available and has been checked, we only have the
    companies guarantee that that source code is being used to compile
    the program that we pay for and download.
    So in theory, it is possible, for the program that we buy and
    download to have a backdoor, while the source code has the backdoor
    removed, there is no way of comparing the source code to a version
    of the program thats downloaded. even if someone can compile the
    program from the source code it still doesnt prove that its the same
    as the program thats downloaded.
    its a question of faith, if people dont trust it, then dont use it!


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