On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Jerry Leichter wrote:
> > As *practical attacks today*, these are of no interest - related key
> attacks only apply in rather unrealistic scenarios, even a 2^119 strength
> is way beyond any realistic attack, and no one would
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte
wrote:
> IMO readability is very hard to measure. Likely things being where you
> expect them to be, with minimal confusing characters but clear "anchoring"
> so you can start reading from anywhere.
>
> If someone could write a generative
On 10/1/2013 2:34 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
What I don't understand here is why the process of selecting a
standard algorithm for cryptographic primitives is so highly focused
on speed. ~
What makes you think Keccak is faster than the alternatives that were
not selected? My implementations sug
writes:
>The (U.S.) medical records system that started at the Veterans'
>Administration and has now spread to all but all parts of the U.S. Federal
>government that handle electronic health records is ASCII encoded, and
>readable. Called "The Blue Button,"[1] there is even an HL7->Blue Button
>
On 2013-10-04 09:33, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The design of WSDL and SOAP is entirely due to the need to impedance
match COM to HTTP.
That is fairly horrifying, as COM was designed for a single threaded
environment, and becomes and incomprehensible and extraordinarily
inefficient security
