1994-06-24 - Re: Unofficial release

Header Data

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

Raw message

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





Thread