Hello all,
If I exchange messages with a system and the messages are encrypted with a
symmetric key, what further benefit would we get by using a MAC (Message
Authentication Code) along with the message encryption?
Being new to all this, using the encrytpion and MAC together seem redundant.
Hi gang,
All quiet on the cryptography front lately, I see. However, that
does not prevent practices that *appear* like protection but are not
even as strong as wet toilet paper.
I had to order a medical device today and they need a signed
authorization for payment by my insurance carrier.
On Jun 26, 2008, at 6:55 PM, David G. Koontz wrote:
[Moderator's note: this seems to be much more about the open source
wars and such than about crypto and security. I'm not going to
forward replies on this topic that don't specifically address
security issues -- those who were not
Erik Ostermueller wrote:
If I exchange messages with a system and the messages are encrypted with a
symmetric key, what further benefit would we get by using a MAC (Message
Authentication Code) along with the message encryption?
Being new to all this, using the encrytpion and MAC together seem
At Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:52:59 -0700 (PDT),
Erik Ostermueller wrote:
If I exchange messages with a system and the messages are encrypted
with a symmetric key, what further benefit would we get by using a
MAC (Message Authentication Code) along with the message encryption?
Being new to all this,
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Erik Ostermueller wrote:
Hello all,
If I exchange messages with a system and the messages are encrypted with a
symmetric key, what further benefit would we get by using a MAC (Message
Authentication Code) along with the message encryption?
Being new to all this, using
[Moderator's note: Top posting considered uncool. --Perry]
While programmers or business=people could be ill-informed, Allen,
I think the greater danger is that IT auditors do not know enough
about cryptography, and consequently pass unsafe business processes
and/or software as being secure.
