1996-11-25 - Re: Smart card attacks vs. clipper?

Header Data

From: “Matthew J. Miszewski” <mjmiski@execpc.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 9a684b00c59d0e1f6162fc2445f617edd594bc88b9ffd738872dc5bb05a77f78
Message ID: <199611252228.QAA28569@mail.execpc.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-25 22:28:28 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 14:28:28 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "Matthew J. Miszewski" <mjmiski@execpc.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 14:28:28 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Smart card attacks vs. clipper?
Message-ID: <199611252228.QAA28569@mail.execpc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


(snip)
> Seems like it's a bit of a different story, since in the Clipper's
> case the algorithm is (ostensibly) unknown, but I'm just curious as
> to whether there is some compromise of its security-through-obscurity.

Actually, in a more recent attack to be published at USENIX (if i 
remember correctly) the attack being performed can also be utilized 
to help determine unknown algorithms.  I will try to dig up the 
reference (unless someone gets to it first).

Matt

> -- 
> ______c_________________________________________________________________
> Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX  * How quickly we forget that
> mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com  * "deer processing" and "data
> http://www.io.com/~m101/                 * processing" are different!
> 
> 





Thread