From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7 Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:01:33 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: References: <87zly3y4ru.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87odejy30k.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <54a15d860710311830s4fa203e3y53fbd6f51496f007@mail.gmail.com> <54a15d860711010824w6888aafdgb0a0e5d48f6fdebb@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194447741 11878 80.91.229.12 (7 Nov 2007 15:02:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:02:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: miles@gnu.org, ueno@unixuser.org, ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 07 16:02:24 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IpmQ1-0000xH-JN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:02:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpmPp-0000Su-To for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:02:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpmPn-0000R8-53 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:01:59 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpmPh-0000Li-Ih for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:01:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpmPg-0000Kn-NI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:01:53 -0500 Original-Received: from blockstar.com ([170.224.69.95] helo=mail.blockstar.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IpmPR-0003DW-2t; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:01:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mungo.local (c-67-186-103-18.hsd1.il.comcast.net [67.186.103.18]) by mail.blockstar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F193F8567; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 07:23:23 -0800 (PST) X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Followup-To: rms@gnu.org, ueno@unixuser.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, ding@gnus.org, miles@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Reiner Steib's message of "Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:11:12 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/22.1.50 (darwin) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:82744 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:65583 Archived-At: On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:11:12 +0100 Reiner Steib wrote: RS> I think it would be useful to have at least one builtin encryption RS> (without requiring external programs) in Emacs, if possible. RS> The cipher should be significantly better than obfuscation (ROT13) but RS> it doesn't need to be as GPG's ciphers. I'm thinking of protection of RS> for not-too-valuable stuff like email and NNTP passwords RS> (e.g. passwords that are stored completely unprotected on disk by many RS> users up to now) against (accidentally?) exposing it to your RS> administrator, colleagues, family members, etc. RS> How strong or week are the builtin ciphers compared to e.g. the RS> algorithm used in Firefox/Thunderbird's password manager (I couldn't RS> find out which cipher the use)? How long does it take on a "standard RS> PC" to break an ~/.authinfo file protected with a password of say 8 RS> chars? The XOR cipher is trivial (it would take a few seconds to a few minutes to break it) but it's slightly better than ROT-13. I can write something stronger, or a steganographic cipher which might be more interesting. Reimplementing AES, for example, would be too slow and unnecessary for an Lisp-based cipher. Firefox uses a plugin-based security device, and I can't find the default cipher it uses. It's much stronger than XOR, though. Ted