1994-12-17 - Re: Thoughts on 15 day CJ crypto

Header Data

From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4eb830e0b72f14a0cd72efa257a35d204ebdda1f49c07d5de3d85a973f30d725
Message ID: <199412171643.IAA29300@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply To: <199412161933.LAA09366@largo.remailer.net>
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-17 16:43:46 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 08:43:46 PST

Raw message

From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 08:43:46 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Thoughts on 15 day CJ crypto
In-Reply-To: <199412161933.LAA09366@largo.remailer.net>
Message-ID: <199412171643.IAA29300@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


It is an interesting idea that the RSA actually helps with the RC4
decryption by letting them check a key guess.

This would suggest, though, that RC4 alone would not be allowed, only RC4
plus RSA.  If they allowed RC4 alone then unlimited-length RSA would not
seem any worse since with RC4 alone you don't get the key-checking
feature.

Also, are there restrictions on the encryption exponent?  A 1024 bit RSA
with a small encryption exponent would be faster to check than a 512 bit
RSA with an arbitrary 512 bit encryption exponent.  So if this were the
reason you might think they would put some restrictions on that.

Hal





Thread