From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Message Hash: 454f7b968e869009332f28f495f8c07db8edc8a7c3b4e620086697c660ad775d
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9611132026.A5464-0100000@netcom14>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961113224825.7335F-100000@polaris>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-14 04:08:50 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:08:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:08:50 -0800 (PST)
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961113224825.7335F-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9611132026.A5464-0100000@netcom14>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> I'm still mildly curious as to why support for >128 bit keys is not
> available in any form I know of.
If you mean symmetric keys of >128 bits, the consensus of the experts is
that even 128 bits are uncrackable by anyone's standard.
--Lucky
Return to November 1996
Return to “sameer <sameer@c2.net>”