🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan7.115335.1216@cs.aukuni.ac.nz> pgut1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) writes:
>I have posted the PGP 2.1 sources to alt.sources - see the posting itself for
>more details (I assume everyone knows what PGP 2.1 is :-).

This intrigues me.  I'm not accusing you (Peter) of anything, but consider:

How do we know the PGP sources on alt.sources (or even that on any FTP site
for that matter) are "safe".  What kind of precautions or checks exist to
prevent bogus code from cropping up.  Why couldn't some intelligence agency
get their hands on the code and weaken the encryption algorithm just enough
for them and then distribute the modified source to the rest of the world.

I haven't looked at the source or the comments myself, so I don't know if
this is already addressed.  But, it concerns me.  Who's to say the copies of
PGP available are trustworthy?  I'm terribly confused...

-tcvz

-- 
Ted C Van Zwol                           |    Genius does what it must,
uucp:      {...!}uunet!bcstec!vanzwol    |    Talent does what it can.
internet:  vanzwol@bcstec.ca.boeing.com  |                  -Emerson
                         ^^^^ new...