PGP: Effectiveness

I just got PGP v8.0.3 -- is it good for securing messages / digital
signiatures or is it easily bypassed these days?

The Astute Cat

In article <>,
says...
> I just got PGP v8.0.3 -- is it good for securing messages / digital
> signiatures or is it easily bypassed these days?
>


nothing about pgp is easily bypassed. you'll hear from both sides I
would assume. if they're adamant about pgp being weak, make them prove
it.



--
Colonel Flagg
http://www.internetwarzone.org/

Privacy at a click:
http://www.cotse.net

Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

"...I see stupid people."

Colonel Flagg

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:03:46 -0500, Colonel Flagg
<> wrote:

>In article <>,
> says...
>> I just got PGP v8.0.3 -- is it good for securing messages / digital
>> signiatures or is it easily bypassed these days?
>>
>
>
>nothing about pgp is easily bypassed. you'll hear from both sides I
>would assume. if they're adamant about pgp being weak, make them prove
>it.

fair comment to make, thanks

I guess if I REALLY didn't want anyone to see stuff, I shouldn't send
it via the net at all
t/a/c

The Astute Cat

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:20:48 +0000, The Astute Cat
<> wrote:

>I just got PGP v8.0.3 -- is it good for securing messages / digital
>signiatures or is it easily bypassed these days?

Until there is evidence someone has broken it, I believe its
offers what - it says, pretty good privacy.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Jim Watt

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:53:44 +0100, Jim Watt <_way>
wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:20:48 +0000, The Astute Cat
><> wrote:
>
>>I just got PGP v8.0.3 -- is it good for securing messages / digital
>>signiatures or is it easily bypassed these days?
>
>Until there is evidence someone has broken it, I believe its
>offers what - it says, pretty good privacy.


cool ...... now just to find others who either have it or are
willing to get it, lol.
t/a/c

The Astute Cat

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

The Astute Cat wrote:
| On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:53:44 +0100, Jim Watt <_way>
| wrote:
|
|
|>On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:20:48 +0000, The Astute Cat
|><> wrote:
|>
|>
|>>I just got PGP v8.0.3 -- is it good for securing messages / digital
|>>signiatures or is it easily bypassed these days?
|>
|>Until there is evidence someone has broken it, I believe its
|>offers what - it says, pretty good privacy.
|
|
|
| cool ...... now just to find others who either have it or are
| willing to get it, lol.
| t/a/c
they dont need the same program as you, just ask if they have a public key.

There is no way to break pgp. The mathmatics behind it prevents any
computer or computer network currently in existance from being able to
break a key. And brute force wont work on even the smallest key of 1024
bits.

Until we figure a way to factor better, these keys arnt being broken.
And when the mathmatics behind asyncronus encrytion is figured out. Then
there are MUCH broader implications than pgp no longer being completely
secure.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAAz+PcyHa6bMWAzYRAo3WAJ4qLlFGu10CbC35ysHp/i2dwr0/2ACgjidh
h4AY4dXp/NNzNSAY6EX9Xaw=
=7Cfi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Steve

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Steve wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>The Astute Cat wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:53:44 +0100, Jim Watt <_way>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:20:48 +0000, The Astute Cat
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I just got PGP v8.0.3 -- is it good for securing messages / digital
>>>> signiatures or is it easily bypassed these days?
>>>
>>> Until there is evidence someone has broken it, I believe its offers
>>> what - it says, pretty good privacy.
>>
>>
>>
>> cool ...... now just to find others who either have it or are
>> willing to get it, lol. t/a/c
>
>they dont need the same program as you, just ask if they have a public key.
>


no need compatable program

here is public key can you use?

-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MFwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADSwAwSAJBAOPVBrMwSpYqshAhyo Fhnl4RCyXYbH8S
cfWCjGa719GvczA9lVRJgJwVSBKuOMiF4epHze5DwRaF3gcPmj BgFLMCAwEAAQ==
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----

or this public key can you use?

---- BEGIN SSH2 PUBLIC KEY ----
AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAAAQQDRIvfxqSAu3DY/nVzg0S2J2zev5SseiGYulgbwx0
FZr6OdeTXKUfKnwOxAMuksvFvoxOVj33ZsY6RA0xTcPOkJ
---- END SSH2 PUBLIC KEY ----

or . . .

-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
T4vNITuvTPH1xpuxDu93RymSU9MD19zZMGhO3T3e
A0W4Vc5FiHD73cLbNtokmxuEEahrT8N0ZWJoNZcL
uuvEbUW7g9cWyW1Dbwy9iTyC8AKvH9DTBoYoByUY
gxSyzXpsJrX6IfXhONkzjbfZVSJeCi0fbYPTxPvB
sUI0wOR7pY8bx5uBJ4HvFkXUj5xGiP8sDPyWcUdG
690358924C02F776C95B27AB2033BC7A
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----

>There is no way to break pgp. The mathmatics behind it prevents any
>computer or computer network currently in existance from being able to
>break a key. And brute force wont work on even the smallest key of 1024
>bits.
>
>Until we figure a way to factor better, these keys arnt being broken.
>And when the mathmatics behind asyncronus encrytion is figured out. Then
>there are MUCH broader implications than pgp no longer being completely
>secure.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFAAz+PcyHa6bMWAzYRAo3WAJ4qLlFGu10CbC35ysH p/i2dwr0/2ACgjidh
>h4AY4dXp/NNzNSAY6EX9Xaw=
>=7Cfi
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

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

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:50:22 +0000, whilst in NewsFroup
alt.computer.security, The Astute Cat <> articulated
the following sentiments :

>On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:53:44 +0100, Jim Watt <_way>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:20:48 +0000, The Astute Cat
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>I just got PGP v8.0.3 -- is it good for securing messages / digital
>>>signiatures or is it easily bypassed these days?
>>
>>Until there is evidence someone has broken it, I believe its
>>offers what - it says, pretty good privacy.
>
>
>cool ...... now just to find others who either have it or are
>willing to get it, lol.
>t/a/c

I hope you have better luck than me. To a lot of people, it's far too much
work to click a few extra buttons before sending an email. It also seems to
appear 'dodgy' to some, as if ' .. you've got something to hide'.

I think we all have if we're honest. PGP is one of my longest used
applications, and I just wish more people would use it. But as I said
above, to many people it just isn't worth the effort. Even though it's no
effort at all.

If you want someone to mail to test it, feel free to use my address. It
should pop up in the Reply To: field.

My public key is here :

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alterna...ete_pubkey.txt

Egards,

Pete.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
Comment: http://www.pgpi.org

iQA/AwUBQAbTlKvcG1UikIrkEQJyJwCfZkbvBEKdf7xHpn917b9L6I jp7WMAoMvl
tzdi3EUSK4dOKg7a3xXbrOfz
=Au/r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Raw Sex