Allen wrote on 31.01.2007 01:02: > I'll skip the rest of your excellent, and thought provoking post as it > is future and I'm looking at now. > > From what you've written and other material I've read, it is clear that > even if the horizon isn't as short as five years, it is certainly > shorter than 70. Given that it appears what has to be done is the same > as the audio industry has had to do with 30 year old master tapes when > they discovered that the binder that held the oxide to the backing was > becoming gummy and shedding the music as the tape was playing - > reconstruct the data and re-encode it using more up to date technology. > > I guess we will have grunt jobs for a long time to come. :)
I think you underestimate what Travis said about ensurance on a long-term encrypted data. If an attacker can (and it is very likely) now obtain your ciphertext encrypted with a scheme that isn't strong in 70-years perspective, he will be able to break the scheme in the future when technology and science allows it, effectively compromising [part of] your clients private data, despite your efforts to re-encrypt it later with improved scheme. The point is that encryption scheme for long-term secrets must be strong from the beginning to the end of the data needed to stay secret. -- SATtva www.vladmiller.info www.pgpru.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
