From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 95 12:17:13 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: 64 bit keys breakable by the NSA or just some random key length?
Message-ID: <199508191913.PAA27964@bb.hks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article
<Pine.LNX.3.91.950819123758.27374A-100000@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>,
zinc@zifi.genetics.utah.edu (zinc) wrote:


>why did the govt pick 64 bits?  is this length still within the range
>of the NSA if they really wanted to read something but didn't feel the
>need or want the exposure of obtaining a key from escrow?
>
>i'm curious if anyone thinks this gives us a little more info on the
>capabilities of the NSA regarding brute forcing a key.  additionally,
>since this *is* an escrow system, why didn't the gov't just go with
>the unbreakable 128 bit key length?  

I think the obvious conclusion would be because 64bits is crackable  if
need be and if you have the resources the goverment has. Not for routine
monitoring of undesirables, but for those special cases where they don't
want to expose their activities by requesting a warrant.

- -- 
- -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
   PGP encrypted mail preferred.
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service

iQBFAwUBMDY3jSoZzwIn1bdtAQGV3gGA26/BZOnXiuMuO8IDgGCnnONVhVtL4/o1
5HVVD3Mqfjp3Sr7QJMQMrfD4JRWRphTL
=evHi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----