4 ms·
Security only makes sense in the context of the technology available to an attacker _at that time_, so I don't think he was wrong. The same way I'm not wrong to
by adtac 4y ago
Security only makes sense in the context of the technology available to an attacker _at that time_, so I don't think he was wrong. The same way I'm not wrong to say X25519 ECDH is secure even though it's very unlikely we'd still be using it in the year 2100.
- Shared404 4y agoTrue, but wasn't email transmitted unencrypted over the wire back then? That seems like a pretty big leap to call secure even when adjusting for the technology available to attackers at that time.
- fipar 4y agoIt was transmitted unencrypted, along with traffic for many other protocols. I have not read the article, but the 1993 note implies this was a time when rsh, telnet, and ftp were still in common use. I don't disagree with you that it's a big leap to call it secure, but my point is I reckon he was not alone making that leap back then.
- doctor_eval 4y agoNo, nobody thought email was secure at the time, that statement stood out to me as well. It’s just an example of marketing bullshit, as is the whole article.
- kragen 4y agoyes, and the sender was entirely unauthenticated, bgp was and is entirely unauthenticated, and dns was entirely unauthenticated