cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-11-24 - Re: IPG Algorith Broken!

Header Data

From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
To: ichudov@algebra.com
Message Hash: be6f7dd879acb15e128be4f073ac22b664c9572ade5417774a471a0da402bb81
Message ID: <199611240818.CAA03694@smoke.suba.com>
Reply To: <199611240059.SAA16286@manifold.algebra.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-24 08:01:44 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 00:01:44 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 00:01:44 -0800 (PST)
To: ichudov@algebra.com
Subject: Re: IPG Algorith Broken!
In-Reply-To: <199611240059.SAA16286@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <199611240818.CAA03694@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Igor:
> > Someone needs to write an IPG and Don Wood FAQ.  No, I'm not volunteering.
> 
> As a crypto amateur, I would appreciate a good technical explanation as
> to why IPG's algorithm cannot be considered secure.

     I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but:

     The algorythm cannot be considered secure until it has been 
peer-reviewed. They refuse to release the algorythm for review, simply saying
that "you can't break the code" therefore "it is secure". I personally have 
a hard time with the cryptograms in the sunday newspaper, never mind something
that would take a real cryptographer longer than a cup of coffee to figure
out.

     Am I close here?    


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

Thread