Keys, keys,keys...

Just installed PGP 6.5.8 and all is running fine, so far :-)

Question: When I opened the PGP Keys window for the first time, apart 
from the *Create Key* wizard, there are about 50 odd keys belonging to 
various and sundry at NAI.

Were these supplied for a purpose or only for illustration? Is there any 
reason they could not or should no be deleted?

Question 2: I sent someone an encrypted test message using that person's 
public key. It went off fine except, I am left with only the encrypted 
eMail. What setting should I change in order for my eMail client (Outlook 
2000) to retain an *unencrypted* copy of the message I sent.

Thanks!

-- 
Jerry 

 
0
Jerry
3/24/2001 8:10:13 PM
grc.techtalk.cryptography 876 articles. 0 followers. Follow

19 Replies
1983 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 47

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

In the options, is a setting to always encrypt to the default key.
Check that and also set your key as the default by right clicking on
it and selecting "set as default".  Then you will be able to open all
messages you encrypt to others.

Jeremy C. Heffner

- --
\/  \/  \/  \/  \/
My website is at http://www.geocities.com/jerheff

My PGP key ID is: 0xCF51CACA
Fingerprint: EC7A 9DC5 719F 10B7 FC2D  1378 843B 6819 CF51 CACA
/\  /\  /\  /\  /\
"Jerry Trudeau" <NOSPAM@address.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1526c9347c266aa1989700@news.grc.com...
|
| Just installed PGP 6.5.8 and all is running fine, so far :-)
|
| Question: When I opened the PGP Keys window for the first time,
| apart  from the *Create Key* wizard, there are about 50 odd keys
| belonging to  various and sundry at NAI.
|
| Were these supplied for a purpose or only for illustration? Is
| there any  reason they could not or should no be deleted?
|
| Question 2: I sent someone an encrypted test message using that
| person's  public key. It went off fine except, I am left with only
| the encrypted  eMail. What setting should I change in order for my
| eMail client (Outlook  2000) to retain an *unencrypted* copy of the
| message I sent.
|
| Thanks!
|
| --
| Jerry
|
|
|
|

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOr0Ag4Q7aBnPUcrKEQJZpQCffOZoPXpnrxgsjxJeT1/CDl+kp+EAoP0j
Z9+Nq8WbrZBMBE0nilMHYePA
=DP7o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Jeremy
3/24/2001 8:16:05 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dear Jerry-

I guess they have the NAI/PGP staff keys so it won't look so lonesome
in there when you open it.  You may want to communicate with them
sometime in the future, but its up to you.

As for the second.  Not sure about Outlook2000 but most people
encrypt to their own public key and their correspondent's.   That way
it is safe in the "sent box" but can be opened if need be.

In the public key protocol, what really happens is:

One of the running programs installed with PGP is a random seed
collector. This program updates itself every time its used with input
from the operator (microseconds between keystrokes, mouse movements,
plus number generation from these). This random information is the
seed for creating the encrypted file. When the file or message is
encrypted; it is compressed and a session key to decipher it is
created at the same time.

This session key to the encrypted document is what is encoded to
one's Public key. Its then combined with the message and sent. When
received, the session key is retrieved by the Private key and used to
decode the document. The Public and Private keys are just used for
signing and session key retrieval. All the heavy lifting is done at
the encoding and due to the constant updating to the random seed
file, each session key is unique; even for the same message.

So you can encrypt the same message to many people at the same time.
What is being encrypted to each person's keys is not the message, but
the session key.


Yours-
Ridge

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQCVAwUBOr0DrzC0P26ft65nAQEttwP/YuesJFqQEsWA/0vfaK4u+LykmvR705DQ
Tpq/48ddJG0Zhs4KGEnL2PVMWEQ+TFNUsbq/LQDBhe8oUpsYn9EDVPY6qEJO+OSf
0RDzf9M81evEt1Gt6u6Ld1kSOUag4UxRbTFzlLCsgrdKTu5+2mnOax+0kPLUKXz+
q7V7f+fOFh0=
=9eIB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Jerry Trudeau" <NOSPAM@address.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1526c9347c266aa1989700@news.grc.com...
>
> Just installed PGP 6.5.8 and all is running fine, so far :-)
>
> Question: When I opened the PGP Keys window for the first time, apart
> from the *Create Key* wizard, there are about 50 odd keys belonging to
> various and sundry at NAI.
>
> Were these supplied for a purpose or only for illustration? Is there any
> reason they could not or should no be deleted?
>
> Question 2: I sent someone an encrypted test message using that person's
> public key. It went off fine except, I am left with only the encrypted
> eMail. What setting should I change in order for my eMail client (Outlook
> 2000) to retain an *unencrypted* copy of the message I sent.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
0
Ridge
3/24/2001 8:29:50 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In Steve Gibson's grc.techtalk.cryptography... Ridge Cook wrote...

>As for the second.  Not sure about Outlook2000 but most people
>encrypt to their own public key and their correspondent's. That way
>it is safe in the "sent box" but can be opened if need be.

I don't use "Always encrypt to default key".
Anyone that has the ciphertext knows to whom the message is encypted.
Pmail keeps 'copies to self' in the clear.
If I want to be "safe" I can always steer the entire message into a
Scramdisk or PGPdisk, that way the header information is not available.
For truely "secure" mail I use a different client.
- -- 
Guy
						                                            
		         GRC Newsgroups - - Security & Privacy
  news://news.grc.com/grc.security     news://news.grc.com/grc.privacy 
		      news://news.grc.com/grc.security.software
		  F6E8 F899 A160 4DAA  6AC4 8BDF F104 3E86		        


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A      

iQEVAwUBOr0TrEgNADYiFUZJAQGbIQf9GXEzz1/NmXETakYgj24oMMQyQzU9oXaN
aSMx11Z+epTspRw61VVdt2n/Ekxr7q5KvPQL3IHumd9TWqdFklMNvSfif5tM8eHf
e/f9TM9KJMg6oFRxR2llTNeGKIrNUNjyalioBs00FFIk9oosQMmp3hj/DRtzNcG+
06FsdeBedMxv9/BGiHqh9MvqRc8Krz34rUOvWNR/1unTumtYwv/CNi8+Tu56KnoR
GN6iad9vzcvfozPwVXIxMmcK4a0RyN4mtPR9QxR83P6VAAydPvKCN/JnlkLo6Baa
UIl/tbk7dYITU7YBVHF2Qz90Le1vv+vBDaPVt11qDDWid9chpKPh/Q==
=nzTH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
GuysAlias
3/24/2001 9:40:17 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dear Guy-

I agree that protecting the whole message would be preferred.  Some
have had success in placing the Outlook personal file and the OE .dbx
s in a Scramdisk or PGPDisk.   Just have to mount the disk before
opening the program.  Done at startup or a button on the toolbar.

I'm going to try that when I move to another installation.

Yours-
Ridge

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQCVAwUBOr0WrjC0P26ft65nAQG9/gQAm9QLi293Dp1xC6UTi0wKtgSTxDDuENrk
o07X8rw9dWIWE7yLMIh+kH0+heM6znw6i81cE4wRkTSFut2H13wmA/YCKW0Om4z2
YlKoCDvS8xj2uCAPCBVutpa4gCywVDsaErEFlzHvzHLEjoV/4V7qHC82K1Xas3sz
kdCzDVKpRcs=
=eHfS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



"Guy" <GuysAlias@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:Xns906E9F27E71242E284CEEC009E394A9D7@AtTheLooneyBin...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In Steve Gibson's grc.techtalk.cryptography... Ridge Cook wrote...
>
> >As for the second.  Not sure about Outlook2000 but most people
> >encrypt to their own public key and their correspondent's. That way
> >it is safe in the "sent box" but can be opened if need be.
>
> I don't use "Always encrypt to default key".
> Anyone that has the ciphertext knows to whom the message is encypted.
> Pmail keeps 'copies to self' in the clear.
> If I want to be "safe" I can always steer the entire message into a
> Scramdisk or PGPdisk, that way the header information is not available.
> For truely "secure" mail I use a different client.
> - --
> Guy
>
>          GRC Newsgroups - - Security & Privacy
>   news://news.grc.com/grc.security     news://news.grc.com/grc.privacy
>       news://news.grc.com/grc.security.software
>   F6E8 F899 A160 4DAA  6AC4 8BDF F104 3E86
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQEVAwUBOr0TrEgNADYiFUZJAQGbIQf9GXEzz1/NmXETakYgj24oMMQyQzU9oXaN
> aSMx11Z+epTspRw61VVdt2n/Ekxr7q5KvPQL3IHumd9TWqdFklMNvSfif5tM8eHf
> e/f9TM9KJMg6oFRxR2llTNeGKIrNUNjyalioBs00FFIk9oosQMmp3hj/DRtzNcG+
> 06FsdeBedMxv9/BGiHqh9MvqRc8Krz34rUOvWNR/1unTumtYwv/CNi8+Tu56KnoR
> GN6iad9vzcvfozPwVXIxMmcK4a0RyN4mtPR9QxR83P6VAAydPvKCN/JnlkLo6Baa
> UIl/tbk7dYITU7YBVHF2Qz90Le1vv+vBDaPVt11qDDWid9chpKPh/Q==
> =nzTH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Ridge
3/24/2001 9:50:50 PM
"Ridge Cook" <johnridgecook@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:MuuqTGKtAHA.1920@colossus.SMG...
....
> As for the second.  Not sure about Outlook2000 but most people
> encrypt to their own public key and their correspondent's.   That way
> it is safe in the "sent box" but can be opened if need be.
....
This is particularly useful when one's public key is on a keyserver
and the recipients of one's e-mail messages like to have confidence
that you are actually the one who sent them the encrypted message.

If you really need to save an unencrypted copy, simply saving the
draft e-mail right before encrypting+signing it will place a copy
in your "Drafts" e-mail folder, which you can easily delete later.
0
32123
4/2/2001 12:01:22 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

32123 cryptically wrote...

>This is particularly useful when one's public key is on a keyserver
>and the recipients of one's e-mail messages like to have confidence
>that you are actually the one who sent them the encrypted message.

Encrypt & Sign
The indentity of Encryptor is not revealed to anyone but Encryptee.

- -- 
Guy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A      

iQEVAwUBOsfegEgNADYiFUZJAQEFbggAwRCW+UXCotP3mdpqM9vD+z2fSEEiYl39
NCgjkm8G/fyHMExdZMizlTQiJvcJe9VxfQVWZqkILMpPew8nez1oraRatZJQcf5J
JRgl7lzZ0jDuhCTOO9xZmKjz/qf3+0o3x8KtnzyFt7awl5J4GDFVuBi4E9BK6UbR
FahTWcC5yl61TFdm9+kHmgZyjgsWuHhMUzRaIdvcq1e7p/8Z9fjd91WDGAkcenEO
Kgx3De+fSZ4//YiBdCNVpRZSKbvAlj0TEBCgO2AGMBdiexrMj8M+WFmDnPhwpnBc
VaSWFsaua5/psuNBCzshzJogSLYuk1WQcwSDrRGOqvwYTMcvRKywSA==
=6azl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
GuysAlias
4/2/2001 2:06:02 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Palindrome :-),

I was under the impression that when I encrypted something, it used my
private key and their public key? If it used both our public keys (most
on
the key servers), surely there would be almost nothing besides our
passphrase between secret and open message? If this is not the case,
there
is little purpose in having a secret key and little point in the lengths
3
letter agencies go to to obtain secret keys.

Also, as an Outlook 2000 (and Outlook Express) user, your method of
getting
an unencrypted message copy would not work as you suggest without extra
steps as the second you press send, any drafts in the drafts folder get
deleted. Using your procedure, once you presssed save on Outlook, you
would
have to go back to the folders window, save a copy of whatever was in
the
saved draft outside of the draft folder and then go back and do the
encryption/send bit.

"32123" <32123@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:7dQCghwuAHA.2088@colossus.SMG...
> "Ridge Cook" <johnridgecook@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:MuuqTGKtAHA.1920@colossus.SMG... ...
> > As for the second.  Not sure about Outlook2000 but most people
> > encrypt to their own public key and their correspondent's.   That
way
> > it is safe in the "sent box" but can be opened if need be.
> ...
> This is particularly useful when one's public key is on a keyserver
> and the recipients of one's e-mail messages like to have confidence
> that you are actually the one who sent them the encrypted message.
>
> If you really need to save an unencrypted copy, simply saving the
> draft e-mail right before encrypting+signing it will place a copy
> in your "Drafts" e-mail folder, which you can easily delete later.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x8496C06D
Comment: Fingerprint: 0D64 76F4 8E94 0A76 A561  A62C EA4A 5AEC 8496 C06D

iQA/AwUBOsjkOupKWuyElsBtEQI2HQCdEK3PAfn2nP6xpK+QR9heriEfxEYAoPZQ
ZkXsToKmhIYEna/kwEOlxjRt
=FRQe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Mark
4/3/2001 6:42:34 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Guy" <GuysAlias@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9076D6A614EF52E284CEEC009E394A9D7@At.The.Looney.Bin...

> Encrypt & Sign
> The indentity of Encryptor is not revealed to anyone but Encryptee.

.... other than what can be gleaned from the mailers from / subject /
other
headers that are not encrypted that is :-)

Hmmm, thinking about it - you would also know the details of who signed
/
encrypted it from the encryption envelope which would tell you the PGP
keyid / fingerprint... You could then read that keys details without
ever
seeing the insides of the encrypted messages contents.

The only way round this would be to have one person write the message
(the
actual author), another encrypt it with their own private key and have
it
all sent using someone elses mailer :-) That should give the traffic
analysts something to play with LOL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x8496C06D
Comment: Fingerprint: 0D64 76F4 8E94 0A76 A561  A62C EA4A 5AEC 8496 C06D

iQA/AwUBOsjmf+pKWuyElsBtEQIVegCfePnuv+fgjoAlLQpc91kzF8lduwwAoJGv
jorAVpLl/6CFZHzto50ArTgc
=5c5k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Mark
4/3/2001 6:52:15 AM
Mark Livingstone cryptically wrote...

>"Guy" <GuysAlias@operamail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9076D6A614EF52E284CEEC009E394A9D7@At.The.Looney.Bin...
>
>> Encrypt & Sign
>> The indentity of Encryptor is not revealed to anyone but
>> Encryptee. 
>
>Hmmm, thinking about it - you would also know the details of who
>signed /encrypted it from the encryption envelope which would tell you 
the PGP keyid / fingerprint... You could then read that keys details
>without ever seeing the insides of the encrypted messages contents.

I do not understand what you are saying - please clarify.
Here tell me "who" signed this message:
(both keys are on keyservers)

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: N/A      
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=A9ez
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
-- 
Happy encrypting,
Guy

See Headers for PGP info :~)
0
GuysAlias
4/5/2001 12:08:37 AM
"Mark Livingstone" <mlivingstone@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:d03PDIWvAHA.2032@colossus.SMG...
....
> "Guy" <GuysAlias@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9076D6A614EF52E284CEEC009E394A9D7@At.The.Looney.Bin...
> > Encrypt & Sign
> > The indentity of Encryptor is not revealed to anyone but Encryptee.
...
> Hmmm, thinking about it - you would also know the details of who signed
> / encrypted it from the encryption envelope which would tell you the
> PGP keyid / fingerprint... You could then read that keys details
> without ever seeing the insides of the encrypted messages contents.
....
Mark L., I regretfully conclude, with some chagrin, that you
indeed seem to be essentially correct on the above point. :-)

If you and our other newsgroup participants would still be
careful not to post anything unencrypted that contains what
appears to be or is my actual name and e-mail address to this
or any other newsgroup, I would greatly appreciate it.

I ask this to help protect me from e-mail address scavenger
spammers, potentially malicious lurkers, and potentially
rabid fans.  Not out of any particularly essential need for
confidentiality, but more in the manner of an author who
simply wants to publish under a pseudonym.

Remember that William Gossett, a statistician at
(and presumably, with) Guinness in Ireland, published
his statistical work under the pseudonym "Student"
(which is why we now have what is called "Student's
t-distribution" and the famous "Student's t-test.")
to avoid his company's rigid publication restrictions.

And I think the world is a better place as a result.

Sincerely,
/s/ 32123 :-)

P.S.:
"LIVE DIRT UP A SIDE TRACK CARTED IS A PUTRID EVIL"
0
32123
4/5/2001 12:22:58 AM
"Mark Livingstone" <mlivingstone@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:sfGuBIWvAHA.1896@colossus.SMG...
...
> Hi Palindrome :-),

LOL!

> I was under the impression that when I encrypted something, it used my
> private key and their public key?

Well..., not exactly.  I'm not sure I understand
it all perfectly, but in a very brief summary type
of way, I see it working like this:

ENCRYPTING: For me to send you a message only we
two can see, I have to encrypt it with both my
public key and your public key.

DECRYPTING: Then only you and I can read it, because
you are the only one who has access to your private
key, which is required to decrypt all messages
encrypted with your public key, and I am the only
one who has access to my private key, which is
required to decrypt all messages encrypted with
my public key.

One of the particularly clever things about PGP
is how Phil Zimmermann figured out how to implement
efficient solutions to many critical technical
implementation problems, for example, "How can
anyone encrypt a message twice, with two different
encryption keys, such that *either* private key
can decrypt it?"

(The answer to this question is available from
multiple sources and is left as an exercise for
the interested student, who will likely find it
worth the effort to locate and understand.)  :-)
 
> Also, as an Outlook 2000 (and Outlook Express) user, your method of getting
> an unencrypted message copy would not work as you suggest without extra
> steps as the second you press send, any drafts in the drafts folder get
> deleted. Using your procedure, once you presssed save on Outlook, you
> would have to go back to the folders window, save a copy of whatever was in the
> saved draft outside of the draft folder and then go back and do the
> encryption/send bit.

You are 100% correct, and I now use multiple Notepad
windows for some such things, although the Drafts
folder still comes in handy for other similar things,
particularly activities prior to clicking "Send."  :-)

/s/ 32123

P.S.:
"Right thinking will be as quickly rewarded."
  --Star Trek, original series, episode "Triskelion."
0
32123
4/5/2001 12:52:38 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gosh, having this conversation in three different places is getting
complicated! I wish I could figure how to message at
news:grc.techtalk.cryptography  and news:alt.security.pgp and email at
the
same time.  I tried putting both in the Newsgroups field in OE but it
gave
some error or other (forgot to write it down!).

I think I have managed to misread what you have been asking and have
answered based on what I thought you said :-)

If a message gets signed then encrypted and sent off somewhere, you
wouldn't be able to see the details of who signed the original message
since the signature is inside the encrypted data block which you would
have
to bedecrypted first (and presumeably uncompressed to?). No Hex Editor
would help you there. What you would be able to find by my reading of
the
RFC's which I emailed you would be the ID of the Public encrypting key.

That said, I wonder how many times it is not the same person / key who
does
a "sign/encrypt" where it would be the same person / key?

Do you often / ever sign the message with one key and then encypt it
with
another one?

> >> Encrypt & Sign
> >> The indentity of Encryptor is not revealed to anyone but
> >> Encryptee.
> >
> >Hmmm, thinking about it - you would also know the details of who
> >signed /encrypted it from the encryption envelope which would tell
you
> the PGP keyid / fingerprint... You could then read that keys details
> >without ever seeing the insides of the encrypted messages contents.
>
> I do not understand what you are saying - please clarify.
> Here tell me "who" signed this message:
> (both keys are on keyservers)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x8496C06D
Comment: Fingerprint: 0D64 76F4 8E94 0A76 A561  A62C EA4A 5AEC 8496 C06D

iQA/AwUBOsubFOpKWuyElsBtEQI3DgCcCVKYql7Vu5YCMOHlpeRSL1AHiv0An0Is
ZE36z8KMZBylAETUqw+SSpcV
=i2Qi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Mark
4/5/2001 8:07:17 AM
If you encrypt a message (or file) and do not use the setting "encrypt to
default key" even you will not be able to decrypt it unless you add you own
key to to the message/file encryption.

Doug Goss

"32123" <32123@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:Daw9IsWvAHA.1724@colossus.SMG...
> "Mark Livingstone" <mlivingstone@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:sfGuBIWvAHA.1896@colossus.SMG...
> ..
> > Hi Palindrome :-),
>
> LOL!
>
> > I was under the impression that when I encrypted something, it used my
> > private key and their public key?
>
> Well..., not exactly.  I'm not sure I understand
> it all perfectly, but in a very brief summary type
> of way, I see it working like this:
>
> ENCRYPTING: For me to send you a message only we
> two can see, I have to encrypt it with both my
> public key and your public key.
>
> DECRYPTING: Then only you and I can read it, because
> you are the only one who has access to your private
> key, which is required to decrypt all messages
> encrypted with your public key, and I am the only
> one who has access to my private key, which is
> required to decrypt all messages encrypted with
> my public key.
>
> One of the particularly clever things about PGP
> is how Phil Zimmermann figured out how to implement
> efficient solutions to many critical technical
> implementation problems, for example, "How can
> anyone encrypt a message twice, with two different
> encryption keys, such that *either* private key
> can decrypt it?"
>
> (The answer to this question is available from
> multiple sources and is left as an exercise for
> the interested student, who will likely find it
> worth the effort to locate and understand.)  :-)
>
> > Also, as an Outlook 2000 (and Outlook Express) user, your method of
getting
> > an unencrypted message copy would not work as you suggest without extra
> > steps as the second you press send, any drafts in the drafts folder get
> > deleted. Using your procedure, once you presssed save on Outlook, you
> > would have to go back to the folders window, save a copy of whatever was
in the
> > saved draft outside of the draft folder and then go back and do the
> > encryption/send bit.
>
> You are 100% correct, and I now use multiple Notepad
> windows for some such things, although the Drafts
> folder still comes in handy for other similar things,
> particularly activities prior to clicking "Send."  :-)
>
> /s/ 32123
>
> P.S.:
> "Right thinking will be as quickly rewarded."
>   --Star Trek, original series, episode "Triskelion."
>
0
Doug
4/5/2001 11:17:50 AM
"Doug Goss" <dwg@iconz.co.new zealand> wrote in message news:OWp8KUcvAHA.1824@colossus.SMG...
> If you encrypt a message (or file) and do not use the setting "encrypt to
> default key" even you will not be able to decrypt it unless you add you own
> key to to the message/file encryption.

Indeed, yes.  You are correct.

/s/ 32123
0
32123
4/6/2001 1:12:51 AM
Mark Livingstone cryptically wrote...

> Do you often / ever sign the message with one key and then encypt it
> with another one?
 

Yes of course - think about this just for a moment. 
Maybe reread whaT I wrote.
Here:
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: N/A      
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=KNl9
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----


-- 
Happy encrypting,
Guy

See Headers for PGP info :~)
0
GuysAlias
4/6/2001 1:32:55 PM
Guy wrote:
> 
> Mark Livingstone cryptically wrote...
> 
> > Do you often / ever sign the message with one key and then encypt it
> > with another one?
> 
> 
> Yes of course - think about this just for a moment.

I'm thinking .......
but I need longer
than a moment ...

(*Hey*, what's in the secret message below?  Can we all read it?  Or is it
a *secret*?)

These encrypted messages are like whispering, aren't they?

Ya know, it's not polite to *whisper* in front of others ... (especially
in front of paranoid people, it can make them worse!)   


> Maybe reread whaT I wrote.
> Here:
> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
> Version: N/A
> 
> qANQR1DBwU4Dc1PoZyERp0sQB/0VTA7HwIxg8nAhyYvPxRFKOJq1vSUicSC1DFw6
> f4RSYxR4E+YH70NPalLYOt7uaLH9LDRhghL6NfrgPCb4/AAps7DHhjjrMNtkgx0K
> V6654H7m0Dh6DCn+EhFr0JyWfT5kUYxAtIbPMWtxNYBYd1YvKiGDggIKuJ+lM6h0
> xDPW2lv9IRmP1d0MujllLBZevlumTWkqT+AU+207F6hIDxlp7frHRXMJjjded9CO
> 00KWIMOLqvxobX7DdnhDyFmsdwlHGRafAZFb9GE7Fz3ANCD0hleWiM9FQkzVTuiC
> whcV092azq0EM/JwpCp5exgvYxPKN6UzBvXKzUvGNgpzT55ZCAClxFUU4Ru1fP0T
> Cs2xNSJRGPR+CNwpZJYyyVizs2y6fBOaz13X/OGHKPavB2NbGATUqa+M4aKe9qKe
> JgXJFqhAmDqm0u0fhQlXo9tnH8gs6fHvVFzNZVL8bGKTcJCr9Wd/2hyM+cjtZYIz
> 4g85/1R+QdJ6BZo+pOc6+CgarH03g3s2EclQtEfvmC+1GJPwPjtswwKUNEt3MG//
> DjUpLoRLDvWblwy1X4p9vNF1SCZ1UEQM0Uxc757tgT+EFzoxOU8z0qrDhx3q5gNM
> b41aAir6YGEeBBGrTDiXrqf3wrTsP4GMNCH0SVjuS3gNU4PpYGsOqdh7xbFDXbSR
> BwCAdP4zycCUC35/d3KMNyU7lyVcigqSMUDAgOfvOHRcWsLz03SEc+lOerI5Cjo4
> 1jyn5T9FmmyG+WsBWDKwm9GZUA9f5MgUC/40KMnSareR8HlwNi0PYeBi0jahiyDa
> GFbWJwYBP0cAyQKL1SUAMvg63VF5X5DcQoQsQIHzURbkU175jGNExbFVeZa9TcsG
> X+XHYOtaQ1kTHmZUaK1//kmC8gOdQlrQ3VHNtLfqCnNhg9kb+4tVMeLVsNyLGjD5
> iZ0S2ydZuzYIQRqVtQ9UFq24rxdFmHygpkE6Jpzwx1emHLZZx7S4Y66lvA+BIvPV
> Hpwpa8GVQcz8u4ylfAr/TxrTeVmLEV22EvK5QCB1SnY6oFPsd016hCYQ+fIo9o8+
> 6tQlbKqUFFCJfggJDstDguDbCoBl7kDewj6BEznUBAHcpg3gfAsx9XAqo6LJF31K
> PLRX44InYYLUZLVMcg==
> =KNl9
> -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
> 
> --
> Happy encrypting,
> Guy
> 
> See Headers for PGP info :~)
0
waves
4/6/2001 1:57:15 PM
Guy wrote:
> 
> Mark Livingstone cryptically wrote...
> 
> > Do you often / ever sign the message with one key and then encypt it
> > with another one?
> 
> 
> Yes of course - think about this just for a moment.

Could/would you then take that message that has been signed with one key
and then encrypted with another key and then sign and encrypt that lot
with a *third* key?  It's what "Johannes" would call *layering*.
0
waves
4/6/2001 2:26:38 PM
Dear Waves-

Yes you can.  That is a way to defeat or hinder man in the middle attacks.
One can get at the encrypted message by just copying, but if they are going
to decrypt, read/alter, and then re-encrypt and send on its way, the
formatting must be EXACT or the outside wrapper would verify as *bad*.  Any
alterations to the encrypted textblock or the inside message would also
verify as *bad*.

Yours-
Ridge


"waves" <waves@wildblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ACDD21E.E15E142E@wildblueyonder.co.uk...
> Guy wrote:
> >
> > Mark Livingstone cryptically wrote...
> >
> > > Do you often / ever sign the message with one key and then encypt it
> > > with another one?
> >
> >
> > Yes of course - think about this just for a moment.
>
> Could/would you then take that message that has been signed with one key
> and then encrypted with another key and then sign and encrypt that lot
> with a *third* key?  It's what "Johannes" would call *layering*.
0
Ridge
4/7/2001 3:22:25 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Pal,

"32123" <32123@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:CkP0jbWvAHA.1652@colossus.SMG...
> "Mark Livingstone" <mlivingstone@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:d03PDIWvAHA.2032@colossus.SMG... ...
> > "Guy" <GuysAlias@operamail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9076D6A614EF52E284CEEC009E394A9D7@At.The.Looney.Bin...
> > > Encrypt & Sign
> > > The indentity of Encryptor is not revealed to anyone but
Encryptee.
> ..
> > Hmmm, thinking about it - you would also know the details of who
signed
> > / encrypted it from the encryption envelope which would tell you the
> > PGP keyid / fingerprint... You could then read that keys details
> > without ever seeing the insides of the encrypted messages contents.
> ...
> Mark L., I regretfully conclude, with some chagrin, that you
> indeed seem to be essentially correct on the above point. :-)

The only way round it would be to have Key 1 and Key 2. The message you
are
working on would have to be worked on in other than a mailer using
plugins
since they don't ask for a separate Key for signing and encrypting. For
example, do it in Notepad. Using hotkeys, sign with PK1. Take this
signed
mesage and encrypt with PK2. Paste resulting text into mailer / reader
and
send. Hopefully recipient can end up reading what the original text was.
Did I get it right? I know what I mean but getting coherent words to
describe it is another thing!!! :-)

Gosh that's a messy business. Think I'll stick to my single DH/DSS key.

> I ask this to help protect me from e-mail address scavenger
> spammers, potentially malicious lurkers, and potentially
> rabid fans.  Not out of any particularly essential need for
> confidentiality, but more in the manner of an author who
> simply wants to publish under a pseudonym.

I'd like to take this up with you further. Perhaps you can email me an
email address or PGP key details (pref. both) or something for this
pseudonym?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x42B7799B7D6B9039
Comment: Fingerprint: F3A0 CCD9 30DC 5957  4C27 D2A5 1A82 6304

iQCVAwUBOs+w50K3eZt9a5A5AQPbhwQAunqh3ZEwqy7GqkJxOLVudum2GI1PUvUJ
ivUFz7iO/X/2c2Kte3nxGZN5EO3Zi94K3NdyRF8CfD/L+7Oep60j1+XsXlqnB+q5
DzO/3Qjwx63zh5ZkhHfNIOHm4LDTT1+voBGyGsbXsKUcPWLKhsngEeVKGltrMhC/
nyiCK1bWgZI=
=lPKP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Mark
4/8/2001 10:29:27 AM
Reply: