1994-07-15 - Re: Triple encryption…

Header Data

From: Berzerk <berzerk@xmission.xmission.com>
To: N/A
Message Hash: be95db06c339f80746ab4e3215ac1fa8d114c5ffed71f23e39b1c8d1228cf7cf
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9407151717.A16059-0100000@xmission>
Reply To: <9407151730.AA19916@tis.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-15 23:10:56 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 16:10:56 PDT

Raw message

From: Berzerk <berzerk@xmission.xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 16:10:56 PDT
Subject: Re: Triple encryption...
In-Reply-To: <9407151730.AA19916@tis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9407151717.A16059-0100000@xmission>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Fri, 15 Jul 1994, Carl Ellison wrote:
> I'd be most concerned about any ciphertext-only attack which is improved by
> having purely random bits as input.  Whichever algorithm is more resistant
Ahhhhhhh, I don't know how to say this, but no such atack exists, and 
none will ever exist.  You can not EVER atack a cipher if the plaintext 
is "random", as you have no basis for saying which "plaintext" is in fact 
the "plaintext".  Now if you know the plaintext(random bits) this is a 
different story.

Roger.





Thread