3 ms·
Encryption is not signing, and relying on it to tell if someone has interfered with the content of a document has a track record of disaster. You need to rely
by hoistbypetard 7y ago
Encryption is not signing, and relying on it to tell if someone has interfered with the content of a document has a track record of disaster.
You need to rely on signing for that.
Even if you're using an encryption scheme that claims to preserve integrity.
Signing is easier, because only the sender needs to set it up for it to be effective.
At any rate, I think I see your point, and that's why I chose the word "suffered." People have suffered from not using server side TLS. Practically no one knows of any consequence they've suffered for sticking to plaintext email.
- inetknght 7y ago> Practically no one knows of any consequence they've suffered for sticking to plaintext email. Quite the contrary. Unauthenticated plaintext email is a major vector for malware and phishing.
- hoistbypetard 7y agoEncryption does not do a thing to prevent malware or phishing. Quite the contrary, it prevents the various middle boxes we have scanning our email from scanning for malware or phishing attempts. There are signing schemes that could help, but they'd not help much if the mail were encrypted before signing unless you're imagining client implementations wildly different than what we see today.