On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 03:34:35PM -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> > ... it does look very much from the outside that there is an
> > informal "Cryptographers Guild" in place...
>
> The Guild, such as it is, is a meritocracy; many previously unknown
> people have joined it since I started watching it
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:19:25AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> it came up lately in a discussion, and I couldn't put a name to it:
> a means to use symmetric crypto without exchanging keys:
>
> - Alice encrypts M with key A and sends it to Bob
> - Bob encrypts A(M) with key B and sends it
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 10:18:27PM +0100, Ian Grigg wrote:
> Steve Furlong wrote:
>
> >Bah. They were probably Word documents with the "password required"
> >option turned on.
>
> Read about one of their coding systems here:
>
> [Moderator's Note: One wonders if the document on the "Smoking Gun"
>
> Contributed by: Daniel R. Miessler
> :: Open Content
>
> If you follow technology trends, you're probably aware of the two schools
> of thought with regard to security and/or cryptography. Does cryptography
> and security solutions become more secure as the number of eyes pouring
> over its
r security holes, but it sure doesn't guarantee that
> >anyone will do so, especially anyone who's at all good at it.
>
> Incidentally, none of the issues that lrk brought up (RSA key being
> made from an "easy to factor" composite, a symmetric key that is a
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:17:15PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> lrk wrote:
>
> >My examination of RSAREF and OpenSSL code was more toward understanding how
> >they handled big numbers. It appears both generate prime numbers which are
> >half the length of the required N
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:45:29PM -0400, Whyte, William wrote:
>
> My understanding is that once you've used trial division to
> get rid of all the extremely short divisors, a random number
> of length n is about as hard to factor as an RSA modulus of
> the same length. I don't think there are a
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 04:57:39PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
> At 10:19 PM 9/15/2004, Ed Gerck wrote:
> >Yes, PKC provides a workable solution for key distribution... when you
> >look at servers. For email, the PKC solution is not workable (hasn't been)
> >and gives a false impression of security.
can hope the intel function has shifted from breaking diplomatic
and military communications to sifting out the gems from the pebbles in
the landslide of general telecomm.
And there is the problem of brainpower. The military and NSA probably have
less now than during real wars.
Note that
