1994-07-14 - Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?

Header Data

From: Carl Ellison <cme@tis.com>
To: solman@MIT.EDU
Message Hash: 197b98d7ab1d6fb8be24411ba14e2df2e6f3a2d25a847dc26d31630c887eb515
Message ID: <9407141449.AA19157@tis.com>
Reply To: <9407141221.AA06307@ua.MIT.EDU>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-14 14:50:05 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 07:50:05 PDT

Raw message

From: Carl Ellison <cme@tis.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 07:50:05 PDT
To: solman@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
In-Reply-To: <9407141221.AA06307@ua.MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <9407141449.AA19157@tis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


have you considered

	des | tran | des | tran | des ?

Thread

• Return to July 1994

• Return to “Carl Ellison <cme@tis.com>”
• Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>”

• Return to “solman@MIT.EDU”

• 1994-07-14 (Thu, 14 Jul 94 05:22:20 PDT) - Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt? - solman@MIT.EDU
  • 1994-07-14 (Thu, 14 Jul 94 06:44:20 PDT) - Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt? - “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
    • 1994-07-15 (Thu, 14 Jul 94 23:45:54 PDT) - Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt? - solman@MIT.EDU
  • 1994-07-14 (Thu, 14 Jul 94 07:50:05 PDT) - Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt? - Carl Ellison <cme@tis.com>
    • 1994-07-15 (Fri, 15 Jul 94 00:27:06 PDT) - Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt? - solman@MIT.EDU