From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 2222fa312323ac50553910c3e54230b7b10d0b1e9604965b02066d5a6933a988
Message ID: <199501120502.VAA29808@largo.remailer.net>
Reply To: <199501112303.SAA14726@bb.hks.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-12 05:04:05 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 21:04:05 PST
From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 21:04:05 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Multiple symetric cyphers
In-Reply-To: <199501112303.SAA14726@bb.hks.net>
Message-ID: <199501120502.VAA29808@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: cactus@seabsd.hks.net (L. Todd Masco)
I'm wondering: would the strength be increased by using a randomly selected
symetric cypher?
Strength is not right aspect. Global risk is reduced, simply because
the aggregate cost of a breach is reduced.
But selecting a single cipher is just as much a fixed policy as a
randomly selected one is. Far better to let the user pick a policy,
both about sent and accepted ciphers.
I guess this reduces to: do strong cyphers have "signatures" of some sort,
by which the type of encryption can be derived?
If they do, they're likely not _strong_ ciphers.
Eric
Return to January 1995
Return to “paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com (Paul Robichaux)”