From: pcw@access.digex.net (Peter Wayner)
To: SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Message Hash: fbdc609569f97a769e81591dceeecf24547a00d422863296a3581ef4bafb3b3f
Message ID: <199406031147.AA06752@access1.digex.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-03 11:48:01 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 04:48:01 PDT
From: pcw@access.digex.net (Peter Wayner)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 94 04:48:01 PDT
To: SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: News Flash: Clipper Bug?
Message-ID: <199406031147.AA06752@access1.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>> One thing this shows, even if the application of the technique turns out
>> to be too difficult to be practical, is that Dorothy Denning's evaluation
>> of the design was worthless. That team should have found this themselves.
>> No wonder she was trying to play it down in the NYT.
>
>It was my understanding that Denning was just looking at the Skipjack
>algorithm, and not the clipper unit as a whole. I wouldn't be too quick
>to condemn her on this point.
Of course, Dorothy Denning could simply say, "Gosh, the Blaze result
shows how to make Clipper _more_ secure for the average user. Now they
don't have to worry about the government. I stand by my assessment that
it is secure."
Return to June 1994
Return to “pcw@access.digex.net (Peter Wayner)”
1994-06-03 (Fri, 3 Jun 94 04:48:01 PDT) - Re: News Flash: Clipper Bug? - pcw@access.digex.net (Peter Wayner)