From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 9d3400292891cf36d4dea56104c073effa5ea4b214029eff3330149da7c9b03e
Message ID: <9406241220.AA12432@fis1510.lehman.com>
Reply To: <9406240401.AA24192@ds1.wu-wien.ac.at>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-24 12:21:10 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 05:21:10 PDT
From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 05:21:10 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Unofficial release
In-Reply-To: <9406240401.AA24192@ds1.wu-wien.ac.at>
Message-ID: <9406241220.AA12432@fis1510.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 06:01:20 +0200
From: nobody@ds1.wu-wien.ac.at
I'm still not sure that I understand the original argument against
using keys that are "too long" by someone's standards. Nor am I
sure the analogy holds up. It would be the security equivalent of
saying that it's "paranoid" to put strong locks on your front door
because your windows are made of glass, and are thus easier to
break than the door.
In the case of 8000ish bit keys, the analogy is more like putting 10
foot thick steel doors on your house and leaving the windows open.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that it's paranoid, but rather
that it's silly.
Rick
Return to June 1994
Return to “Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>”