1996-02-03 - Re: Lotus Notes

Header Data

From: David Mazieres <dm@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f05cfb69a467b842a595a7b73c8e95c5196793f1ae25787c10656e034ce61918
Message ID: <199602030230.VAA06785@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
Reply To: <199601310705.XAA09848@netcom6.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-03 03:20:16 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 11:20:16 +0800

Raw message

From: David Mazieres <dm@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 11:20:16 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Lotus Notes
In-Reply-To: <199601310705.XAA09848@netcom6.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199602030230.VAA06785@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Tim May had it exactly right in his post entitled "Silver Linings
> and Monkey Wrenches" (thanks Tim).  The only thing I can add is that
> forcing them to attack a 40 bit key is better than giving them the
> whole key thru some LEAF scheme ala Clipper.

Your point may be valid, but who is attacking a 40 bit key?  Is
cracking 40 out of 64 bits of a 64-bit RC4 key as hard as cracking a
40 bit key, or does knowing a significant portion of the key make the
search considerably easier than brute force?  I've never heard anyone
make an assertion either way, except that some people seem to assume a
the difficulties are the same.

Thanks,
David






Thread