On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Trei, Peter wrote:
>This reminds me an awful lot of the appointment of a 'blue-ribbon,
>independent, civilian" panel to look at Skipjack. They did, and
>reported no obvious weaknesses in the algorithm. Years later,
>when Skipjack was released, open review showed that while it
>wasn't clearly broken, it just didn't seem to be very good (aside
>from the inadequate 80 bit keyspace).
Just BTW; has the skipjack algorithm been published? I'd like to
scan it, just for hysterical porpoises, and see what it was that
they were trying to sell besides broken-as-designed key management.
Bear
