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

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: solman@mit.edu
Message Hash: 2bfea5e2f3089b1805d2557a8addd5aa654fd5478912b708c0a945592e12063d
Message ID: <9407141343.AA17589@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <9407141221.AA06307@ua.MIT.EDU>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-14 13:44:20 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 06:44:20 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 06:44:20 PDT
To: solman@mit.edu
Subject: Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
In-Reply-To: <9407141221.AA06307@ua.MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <9407141343.AA17589@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



solman@mit.edu says:
> Why do people do tripple DES and *shudder* tripple IDEA
                   ^^^^^^^triple.

> instead of doing some form of non-redundant secret splitting
> and then encrypting with multiple keys.

Because people like algorithms that work quickly and don't expand
their data by a factor of two or three. As I've noted before, in spite
of protestations, the evidence is good that splitting and encryption
doesn't by you much over simple superencipherment.

Perry

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