Is sending someone a "bcc" copy really secure? I have heard it said that
sophisticated software can decode "bcc". Would anyone know? I would imagine
that NSA and GCHQ would have no problem. It is useful sometimes to send
someone a "blind carbon copy" - an old typewriter phrase - but it may be
insecure.

Derek

All the alphabet agencies would have no problem doing it. I have a friend
that works with computers at Naval Air Station, North Island, and he can do
it, but with the help of the Navy's tools at his side. The average person
would not be able to do it so fast.
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP Outlook Express
Imperial Beach, CA

"Derek" wrote:

> Is sending someone a "bcc" copy really secure? I have heard it said that
> sophisticated software can decode "bcc". Would anyone know? I would imagine
> that NSA and GCHQ would have no problem. It is useful sometimes to send
> someone a "blind carbon copy" - an old typewriter phrase - but it may be
> insecure.
>
> Derek
>
>
>
>

It keeps u from geting added into the other recipients addy book which
is very good.

BCC is more secure than most cars or houses or phones

HTH-Larry

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:58:31 -0000, "Derek" <info@networkmyanmar.org>
wrote:

>Is sending someone a "bcc" copy really secure? I have heard it said that
>sophisticated software can decode "bcc". Would anyone know? I would imagine
>that NSA and GCHQ would have no problem. It is useful sometimes to send
>someone a "blind carbon copy" - an old typewriter phrase - but it may be
>insecure.
>
>Derek
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A working unsecure OS is infinitely better than non-working secure OS.
Just spent 1 week cleaning up the mess WUpdate made preventing
hypothetical security problems. http://microscum.com/comsense/

Many thanks to you and Larry. Some caution is clearly needed over sensitive
messages.

Derek


"Bruce Hagen" <Nospam@mymail.invalid> wrote in message
news:F18886F6-688E-4C5E-9E88-27EEE87C55F7@microsoft.com...
> All the alphabet agencies would have no problem doing it. I have a friend
> that works with computers at Naval Air Station, North Island, and he can
> do
> it, but with the help of the Navy's tools at his side. The average person
> would not be able to do it so fast.
> --
> Bruce Hagen
> MS-MVP Outlook Express
> Imperial Beach, CA
>
> "Derek" wrote:
>
>> Is sending someone a "bcc" copy really secure? I have heard it said that
>> sophisticated software can decode "bcc". Would anyone know? I would
>> imagine
>> that NSA and GCHQ would have no problem. It is useful sometimes to send
>> someone a "blind carbon copy" - an old typewriter phrase - but it may be
>> insecure.
>>
>> Derek
>>
>>
>>
>>

In practice, you should consider any email message, even one sent BCC, to be
the equivalent of a postcard, the contents of which can be viewed by anybody
at anytime.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/

Derek wrote:
> Many thanks to you and Larry. Some caution is clearly needed over
> sensitive
> messages.
>
> "Bruce Hagen" <Nospam@mymail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:F18886F6-688E-4C5E-9E88-27EEE87C55F7@microsoft.com...
>> All the alphabet agencies would have no problem doing it. I have a friend
>> that works with computers at Naval Air Station, North Island, and he can
>> do
>> it, but with the help of the Navy's tools at his side. The average person
>> would not be able to do it so fast.
>> --
>> Bruce Hagen
>> MS-MVP Outlook Express
>> Imperial Beach, CA
>>
>> "Derek" wrote:
>>
>>> Is sending someone a "bcc" copy really secure? I have heard it said that
>>> sophisticated software can decode "bcc". Would anyone know? I would
>>> imagine
>>> that NSA and GCHQ would have no problem. It is useful sometimes to send
>>> someone a "blind carbon copy" - an old typewriter phrase - but it may be
>>> insecure.
>>>
>>> Derek

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:58:31 -0000, Derek wrote:

> Is sending someone a "bcc" copy really secure?

How could a "BCC:" list be "more secure" than an ordinary list? The answer
is, "No".

> I have heard it said that sophisticated software can decode "bcc".

You have heard wrong. BCC: is not a method of encoding information, it is a
method of sending email to a list of recipients. An email sent to a BCC:
list is no more secure than an email sent to a "CC:" list.

> Would anyone know?

If you think about what "BCC:" accomplishes, the answer is as plain as the
unecoded text in an email.

> I would imagine that NSA and GCHQ would have no problem. It is useful
> sometimes to send someone a "blind carbon copy" - an old typewriter phrase -
> but it may be insecure.

There is no security in suppressing the list of recipients of any email
message. All that BCC: does is to suppress the recipient list. No recipient
knows who any of the other recipients are. Nor is there any way for any
recipient to learn who any of the others is.

--
Norman
~Shine, bright morning light,
~now in the air the spring is coming.
~Sweet, blowing wind,
~singing down the hills and valleys.

The object of BCC is to protect the address of the recipient from spammers and other on the mailing,
not to make the email itself secure.

"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
news:8n4s5vq45055$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:58:31 -0000, Derek wrote:
>
>> Is sending someone a "bcc" copy really secure?
>
> How could a "BCC:" list be "more secure" than an ordinary list? The answer
> is, "No".
>
>> I have heard it said that sophisticated software can decode "bcc".
>
> You have heard wrong. BCC: is not a method of encoding information, it is a
> method of sending email to a list of recipients. An email sent to a BCC:
> list is no more secure than an email sent to a "CC:" list.
>
>> Would anyone know?
>
> If you think about what "BCC:" accomplishes, the answer is as plain as the
> unecoded text in an email.
>
>> I would imagine that NSA and GCHQ would have no problem. It is useful
>> sometimes to send someone a "blind carbon copy" - an old typewriter phrase -
>> but it may be insecure.
>
> There is no security in suppressing the list of recipients of any email
> message. All that BCC: does is to suppress the recipient list. No recipient
> knows who any of the other recipients are. Nor is there any way for any
> recipient to learn who any of the others is.
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Shine, bright morning light,
> ~now in the air the spring is coming.
> ~Sweet, blowing wind,
> ~singing down the hills and valleys.

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:38:38 -0700, Richard in AZ wrote:

> The object of BCC is to protect the address of the recipient from spammers and other on the mailing,
> not to make the email itself secure.

I had always thought that the function of BCC was to suppress the recipient
list; nothing more. I just don't see how "security" factors in to this.

--
Norman
~Shine, bright morning light,
~now in the air the spring is coming.
~Sweet, blowing wind,
~singing down the hills and valleys.