Re: Encryption protection

2001-03-02 Thread Kevin M. Myer
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Todd Reed wrote: I understand from the replies here that SimpleCrypt isn't secure, at least in the sense that with enough time the encryption scheme can be defeated. That's true for any scheme if you have infinite amounts of time and computers. What I'd like to know is

[Fwd: Re: Encryption protection]

2001-02-28 Thread ilyes
ditto! USERS RULE! plug-in encryption modules, hiphip! - ilyes Original Message From: Eric Ullman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Encryption protection To: retro-talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *right* way to implement this is to let

Re: Encryption protection

2001-02-28 Thread Todd Reed
Title: Re: Encryption protection I understand from the replies here that SimpleCrypt isn't secure, at least in the sense that with enough time the encryption scheme can be defeated. That's true for any scheme if you have infinite amounts of time and computers. What I'd like to know

Re: Encryption protection

2001-02-28 Thread Jon Stevens
on 2/28/01 11:30 AM, "Todd Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand from the replies here that SimpleCrypt isn't secure, at least in the sense that with enough time the encryption scheme can be defeated. That's true for any scheme if you have infinite amounts of time and computers. What

Re: Encryption protection

2001-02-27 Thread Jon Stevens
on 2/27/01 7:11 AM, "Todd Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric, Thanks for your reply. What I would like to know is what kind of computing horsepower is necessary to crack SimpleCrypt's encryption protection? If someone acquired a tape from me that was encrypted, what kind of resources

Re: Encryption protection

2001-02-27 Thread Douglas K Wyman
Title: Re: Encryption protection You're kidding, aren't you...? Better to think about moving away from the canal and up to some high ground...or to a state that isn't sliding into the ocean so soon... Seriously, physical security should always be your first priority. Suppose someone decides

Re: Encryption protection

2001-02-27 Thread Eric Ullman
Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *right* way to implement this is to let the USERS choose which encryption scheme THEY want to use. Dantz shouldn't be the one who chooses this. It could be as simple as a popup menu on the server that would decide which scheme to use. If I want DES,

Re: Encryption protection

2001-02-27 Thread Eric Ullman
Todd Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for your reply. What I would like to know is what kind of computing horsepower is necessary to crack SimpleCrypt's encryption protection? If someone acquired a tape from me that was encrypted, what kind of resources would it take to get into the

Re: Encryption protection

2001-02-27 Thread Jon Stevens
on 2/27/01 10:31 PM, "Eric Ullman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is definitely an issue with encryption. Cracking various encryption methods is really only a question of time, computing power, and some luck. Heck, I thought DES was cracked in 1998! I'm not sure the exact date it was cracked,

Re: Encryption protection

2001-02-24 Thread Todd Reed
That's what I'd like to know. How tough is SimpleCrypt's encryption scheme compared to the amount of resources it would take to crack it? Todd Reed On 2/23/01, David Ross emailed about "Re: Encryption protection": What's the scoop here? I've been running on the assumption

Re: Encryption protection

2001-02-23 Thread David Ross
What's the scoop here? I've been running on the assumption that if I lost a tape under mysterious circumstances that the information would be unrecoverable. Nothing is unrecoverable if you have enough time. So the real question is how long would the various choices take to crack. --