Adam Shostack wrote:
| RC4 is like a brick that can be used to build a house.
I'd say that RC4 is like one of those cool, semi-opaque glass bricks.
Considering that RSA Security changed their logo to a red 'brick' a
while back (they called
it a brick as part of the corporate PR around the
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 04:11:19PM -0700, Jeff Simmons wrote:
| On Sunday 21 October 2001 02:52 pm, you wrote:
|
| Designing protocols is a hard field, and
| there seem to be lots of mistakes made when people use RC4. Is that
| because its a bad cipher? No, its because people aren't used to
|
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 01:31:36AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On 8 Oct 2001, at 11:37, Ray Dillinger wrote:
| In which case, what you've got isn't RC4 anymore
|
| You do not understand encryption.
|
| RC4 is an encryption method, that needs to be part of a
| protocol. The protocol can
[This response probably can't get to all of the lists to which
the original message was addressed to. Feel free to forward
it to those lists, if you can, and to other addresses as needed.
-pt]
Alex Alten[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
[.discussion of .NET weaknesses deleted]]
RC4
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 01:22:31PM -0500, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
[ Greate description of M$ ... ]
I am unaware of anything microsoft has ever written
that could be considered secure and there is evidence that they plan
Outlook once offered me the choice between no encryption and
a so called
The original proposal for dot-net was to *centralize* all of the personal
information on at one location. This part may be changing with recent
capitulations regarding, of all things, interoperability. This idea of
centralizing everyone's personal information is the scary part of all this
to
