Richard Reid/Abdul Ra'uff encryption

[John Young]

Ken Brown wrote:

>Why can't it just be the encrypted file system that ships with Windows,
>as said in the reports?  A standard feature of the OS. 

Perhaps that all there is to it. However, the WSJ article states that
a "primer on encryption" was found without further explanation.
And an earlier news report claimed that a PGP manual was
discovered elsewhere, though no accounts of PGP use by the
alleged enemy have been reported, as far as I know.

If the decryption was done by a US government agency or a
contractor which does governement work there will be no 
disclosure of what encryption cannot be decrypted, and little 
if anything about what can. What will be disclosed about
encryption will be misleading accounts in accord with
current and long-standing policy.

We offer the WSJ article for those not subscribed:

  http://cryptome.org/wsj-spytrip.htm

Further, we have today inquired of the two WSJ reporters:

-----

alan.cullison@wsj.com, andrew.higgins@wsj.com

Dear Messrs. Cullison and Higgins,

This is in response to your exellent report on the Al Qaeda
computer disks of January 16.

We operate a Web site that covers encryption, Cryptome.org,
and would be grateful for additional information on the encryption 
used on the computer disks and files. We have read UK newspaper 
accounts yesterday about the alleged Windows encryption system.

Could you reveal what other types and strengths of encryption
were used on the disks and files? Were all files decrypted or 
only those you reported on? What was the extent of the primer 
on encryption: did it cover the general topic or was it a manual
for a particular program, say, PGP or another? (There have 
been news reports on a manual for PGP found elsewhere in 
the Afghanistan.)

Can you reveal more about the decryption process, its operators,
computer array, and programs used? Was the cracking private or 
governmental? Were you told of the methods used?

-----