At 11:17 AM -0800 11/23/2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically cetificates are an implementation of R/O partial replicated
distributed data that were intended to address availability of
information in a
predominately offline environment.
In the SSL server certificates, distribution of CRLs
At 12:08 PM + 11/19/2000, Perry commented:
[I see you've never paid attention to how easy it is to get a
certificate, Ben. I suspect I could get one in the name of any company
with about 20 minutes of unskilled forgery. The level of checking done
is trivial. This wouldn't be a problem except
At 9:16 PM -0400 10/28/2000, John Kelsey wrote:
I'll comment more on this from another note of yours. I
think you're probably right, but that we need to figure out
how to really nail that argument down, which means
specifying exactly what's meant by ``close to an inverse,''
or whatever.
I have
At 2:14 PM -0700 10/20/2000, Bram Cohen wrote:
This is just silly. There's nothing wrong with Rijndael.
Maybe so. I do agree that Rijndael is an excellent design and a good
choice for AES. But it hasn't been tested enough for complete
confidence, in my opinion. Supposedly NSA takes 7 years to
At 8:13 PM -0400 10/11/2000, John Kelsey wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 01:44 PM 10/10/00 -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
...
I was thinking it might be useful to define a "Paranoid
Encryption Standard (PES)" that is a concatenation of all
five AES finalist
At 11:50 AM -0600 10/20/2000, Bob Jueneman wrote:
Let's put this problem in perspective, and try to avoid the "chicken
little, the sky is falling" syndrome.
It's quite unlikely that someone would come up with "Eureka!" type
of solution to factoring large numbers that would end up completely
At 10:23 AM -0700 10/18/2000, Ed Gerck wrote:
"Arnold G. Reinhold" wrote:
At 11:21 AM -0700 10/17/2000, Ed Gerck wrote:
As Tony Bartoletti wrote, apologies for what seems a rant, but the "solid
mathematical foundations" underlying digital signatures, "Qualified
Cer
At 4:37 PM -0700 10/16/2000, Ed Gerck wrote:
Borrowing from a private comment from Bob Jueneman, whatever the technical
community decides that non-repudiation means, it probably isn't what the legal
community means. So be it. Certainly the legal profession uses
ordinary English
words to mean
At 10:20 PM -0700 10/15/2000, Ed Gerck wrote:
Arnold,
Internet RFCs are technical specifications that use common English words in
a strictly defined manner. To suggest that the use of names in computer code
or Internet RFCs might have legal implications ... imagine lawyers examining
some code
ideas in this posting
are patentable, I would happily place them in the public domain.
Arnold Reinhold
At 2:17 AM -0400 10/10/2000, Vin McLellan wrote:
Arnold G. Reinhold [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
What is the licensing status of the other finalists? For example,
I seem to recall reading
At 8:10 PM -0700 8/9/2000, David Honig wrote:
At 08:29 AM 8/9/00 -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
It's 1) saying that the passphrase can "usually be broken". I'm sure
that some people manage to choose poor/short passphrases, but "usually"
would be pushing it.
Has anyone ever published an entropy vs.
11 matches
Mail list logo
