1996-02-01 - Re: Two bits, Four Bits, ETC

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
Message Hash: a7a976b283073ec617515b791d224a3bfaf4cdabe663335c04048c6ce523c139
Message ID: <199601311558.KAA05088@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199601301853.KAA13801@well.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-01 10:58:39 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:58:39 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:58:39 +0800
To: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
Subject: Re: Two bits, Four Bits, ETC
In-Reply-To: <199601301853.KAA13801@well.com>
Message-ID: <199601311558.KAA05088@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Brian D Williams writes:
> Excellent point Bill! Lets not forget that IBM owns Lotus Notes, be
> sure to include that in your bashing. They caved in on Lucifer
> after all. ;)

Lucifer isn't stronger than DES, so it wasn't a cave in. An
understanding of differential cryptanalysis makes all the
difference...

Thread

• Return to January 1996

• Return to February 1996

• Return to “Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>”

• Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>”

• 1996-01-30 (Wed, 31 Jan 1996 05:52:18 +0800) - Two bits, Four Bits, ETC - Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
  • 1996-02-01 (Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:58:39 +0800) - Re: Two bits, Four Bits, ETC - “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>