John Gilmore wrote: >and I have two comments. >First. the professional cryptographers of my acquaintance avoid >assumptions about the encodings of the encrypted documents they are >examining. They regard this as an empirical question to be answered >empirically, and they have powerful statistical methods for answering >such questions available to them
There are ways to suggest results, sure. My point, however, was that with NO idea what you're looking at, the Codex and a pr0n JPG are equally of value. And when you have no idea, applying those statistical methods becomes yet another drain on resources and time... >Second, the notion that "DES (56 bit key strength)" is adequate to any >serious encryption task will delight the NSA, the Chinese, and others >of that ilk. Nor did I suggest that DES is adequate. Please reread. ...phsiii ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
