Good question, Todd.
Basically, Retrospect's SimpleCrypt encryption method is faster than DES,
but the tradeoff for speed yields a less robust encryption scheme.
Conceivably, it would take less time to decipher data that had been encoded
with SimpleCrypt than with DES (or some other strong encryption method).
Encryption should never be relied on as the sole means of keeping your data
from unwanted access. It should always be used in conjunction with physical
security measures. Any data important enough to worry about someone cracking
its encryption method is important enough to restrict access to.
One benefit of backing up computer data to compact, removable media is that
it is relatively easy to collect and store in a secure location. Don't
dismiss this advantage.
I hope this helps.
Eric Ullman
Dantz Development
Todd Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a mailing list I inhabit, the quality of Retrospect's encryption
> was challenged as being inadequate. The comment was that neither DES
> or Dantz' proprietary Vernam cipher would be secure from a serious
> attempt to retrieve stolen backup data.
>
> What's the scoop here? I've been running on the assumption that if I
> lost a tape under mysterious circumstances that the information would
> be unrecoverable.
>
> How does SimpleCrypt compare to DES and how hard would someone have
> to try to break the encryption?
--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/retro-talk%40latchkey.com/>
For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.
