Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    BINKD    |    Support for the Internet BinKD mailer    |    8,958 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 6,521 of 8,958    |
|    Rob Swindell to Alexey Fayans    |
|    BINKP over TLS    |
|    20 Dec 19 09:56:21    |
      TZUTC: -0800       MSGID: 7265.binkd@1:103/705 22625da6       REPLY: 2:5030/1997@fidonet 5dfcc965       PID: Synchronet 3.17c-Linux Dec 12 2019 GCC 6.3.0       TID: SBBSecho 3.10-Linux r3.148 Dec 12 2019 GCC 6.3.0       COLS: 80       CHRS: CP437 2       NOTE: FSEditor.js v1.103        Re: BINKP over TLS        By: Alexey Fayans to Rob Swindell on Fri Dec 20 2019 04:12 pm               > Hello Rob!        >        > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 15:43 -0800, you wrote to me:        >        > >> The whole sentence is wrong. CA is required to make sure that the        > >> certificate provided by server was not replaced by an attacker        > >> during MitM attack. With self-signed certificate you can never tell        > >> that you are connecting to the real system, unless you know a CA        > >> pubkey used to sign that self-signed certificate. That's kinda        > >> basic stuff.        > RS> True, if you're concerned about active MitM attacks (not just        > RS> passive-snooping).        >        > Isn't it your main argument against STARTTLS?              Under no case is Opportunistic TLS (e.g. STARTTLS) as secure as Implicit TLS.       Yes, the use of self-signed certs is less secure than CA-signed certs, but       that's a different matter and true for both Opportunistic and Implicit TLS.               > RS> But if you're concerned about active MitM attacks,        > RS> then you don't want to use STARTTLS either.        >        > Why not? It is perfectly mitigated and I explained that a few times already.        > You gotta stop looking back at old SMTP implementation that wasn't designed        > against active MitM attacks in the first place.              I look at all the applications of Opportunistic TLS and they're all less       secure than Implicit TLS.               digital man              Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #73:       TCP = Transmission Control Protocol       Norco, CA WX: 66.7øF, 22.0% humidity, 3 mph WSW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs       --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux        * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)       SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 103/705 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/0 227/114 229/101       SEEN-BY: 229/200 354 426 1014 240/5832 249/307 317 280/464 5003 5555       SEEN-BY: 292/854 310/31 342/200 396/45 423/120 712/848 770/1 2452/250       PATH: 103/705 280/464 229/426           |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca