From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:36:39 +0800
To: "JOHN E. HOLT" <76473.1732@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: The POUCH
In-Reply-To: <960826234448_76473.1732_BHT119-3@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960827002927.6637D-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On 26 Aug 1996, JOHN E. HOLT wrote:

> The Pouch uses a 64 x 64 block product cipher, a 1024 bit random initialization
> vector and the CBC technique.  Most experts agree that such an implementation is highly resistant to all forms of cryptographic attack.
> Hellman and Dilfie rely on knowing the algorithm for their known plain text attacks
> An unpublished algorithm forces them into reverse engineering the computer
> programs to learn the algorithm. The POUCH has many roadblocks built in
> to prevent this.
> I refer to Cummings, Cryptography and Data Security pages 150 and 98 in this regard.
> John Holt

Yes fine, but with an untested algorithm how do you propose to provide for
peer review, or do you propose that the authors of "The Pouch" are too
expert to need/require the input of fellow professionals?

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li