[This is very interesting. NAI who now owns and supports PGP, seems to question why anyone would want to use such strong encryption.]
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Thompson, Schuyler" (sthomps@bighorn.dr.lucent.com) To: dc (dc-stuff@merde.dis.org) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:34:20 -0600 Subject: RE: PGP Backdoored? Here's the original letter ('Raston' is my moniker, at personal address). This is the letter that actually answers the questions- there were several attempts because the prior responses I received wouldn't say a thing about it. (And, retreiving it from archive and re-reading it, I didn't quote the last sentance correctly the first time, though the premise was there- sorry for the inaccuracy.) -----Original Message----- From: Crowley, Greg [mailto:Greg_Crowley@NAI.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 9:15 AM To: 'raston@nilenet.com' Cc: DeSpain, Brian Subject: RE: Customer Care form feedback -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Raston: I'm an SE here at Nai. PGP uses a 128 bit symmetric key. This is the underlying encryption before it is locked with the appropriate recipient's public key which is scaleable from 796 to 4096 bits. Blowfish generated keys are not readable with PGP software. However, with the largest installed customer database you're better off going with PGP in terms of widespread usability. Your question about strength or "hack-ability" is a moot question since you probably don't own three CRAY supercomputer or have the required time frame (12 million times the age of the universe). PGP uses Diffie-Helman primarily with an underlying DES key with RSA capabilities. There is no back door to PGP, however, using our Policy Management Agent for SMTP, you could implement a key escrow policy. 5.0 Vs 5.5.5 is just a bunch of more attractive GUI's and plug-ins. It makes me wonder what you're encrypting with all these questions. Greg Crowley Systems Engineer PGP Specialist