1995-01-10 - Re: Crypto functions

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: “L. Todd Masco” <cactus@hks.net>
Message Hash: 106aaf1f89f210851d021cc967859ce828bcce221cb8c9f4d095d73c53b578ed
Message ID: <9501102208.AA26444@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199501102139.QAA00961@bb.hks.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-10 22:08:54 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 10 Jan 95 14:08:54 PST

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 95 14:08:54 PST
To: "L. Todd Masco" <cactus@hks.net>
Subject: Re: Crypto functions
In-Reply-To: <199501102139.QAA00961@bb.hks.net>
Message-ID: <9501102208.AA26444@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"L. Todd Masco" says:
> What crypto functions are considered modern and usable?  The list I have
> right now is:
> 
> RSA
> IDEA
> DES
> 3DES
> RC4
> RC5
> BLOWFISH
> MD4
> MD5

I wouldn't use BLOWFISH. MD4 is flawed -- and its a hash function, not
a crypto function (as is MD5). RC5 is very, very new. RC4 hasn't been
well studied in the open literature yet, though it is quite promising.

.pm





Thread