In
<3(_dot_)0(_dot_)3(_dot_)32(_dot_)19980325135801(_dot_)00b59ac0(_at_)mail(_dot_)pgp(_dot_)com>,
on 03/25/98
at 04:58 PM, Jon Callas <jon(_at_)pgp(_dot_)com> said:
An excellent point -- there needs to be clarification there. I've added
text that says, "...it MUST be computed from the finished (encrypted,
signed, etc.) message in a deterministic fashion..."
How's that?
I had not thought of leaking key data this way. If the group feels this is
a real concern couldn't the same type of "leaking" be done with the
"boundary" in the MIME headers?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0
Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/esecure.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tag-O-Matic: You said Windows was a Power Tool???
pgp9yUW1EIkjv.pgp
Description: PGP signature