1994-07-07 - Re: Schneier Claims on Multiple Encryption

Header Data

From: Roger Bryner <bryner@atlas.chem.utah.edu>
To: Kent Borg <kentborg@world.std.com>
Message Hash: c4c39ebd9c1196401cbb3e6dd165c13792d9294418a4850178eedce476d5df58
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9407071100.A25692-0100000@atlas.chem.utah.edu>
Reply To: <199407070543.AA14055@world.std.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-07 17:37:39 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 7 Jul 94 10:37:39 PDT

Raw message

From: Roger Bryner <bryner@atlas.chem.utah.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 94 10:37:39 PDT
To: Kent Borg <kentborg@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Schneier Claims on Multiple Encryption
In-Reply-To: <199407070543.AA14055@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9407071100.A25692-0100000@atlas.chem.utah.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 7 Jul 1994, Kent Borg wrote:
> Kent's Hypothosis: Superencrypting different algorithms with unrelated
> keys can never weaken non-trivial algorithms.
Well, it could, just posibly, once in the enrtopy of your adverage 
algorithim, but then, as you pointed out, you could just use DES as a 
magic IDEA decoder:-)

You can prove that there is no such interaction if you use two different 
algorithims on two halfs of a one time pad message, even with the SAME key.
 
Roger.





Thread