1997-07-28 - Cryptography Question (I hope it’s not off-topic on this list)

Header Data

From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a2ecfe39f88227814a37116bae82bd09eeba3de0efc418eb378e3051bf4b5e01
Message ID: <199707281537.RAA09388@basement.replay.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-28 15:51:36 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:51:36 +0800

Raw message

From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:51:36 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Cryptography Question (I hope it's not off-topic on this list)
Message-ID: <199707281537.RAA09388@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



  I was thinking about *chaining* remailers and wondered if encryption
of a certain strength could be *chained* in order to make it as strong
as stronger encryption.
  e.g. - If only 56-bit encryption becomes legal, is there a method
of *chaining* several passes of 48-bit encryption which would make it
just as hard to break as 96/192/384-bit (etc.) encryption?

  If this is indeed impossible, then perhaps the government might pass
a law that makes it illegal to encrypt an encrypted file, but experience
seems to suggest that any law passed always leaves a loophole or back
door for inventive people to circumvent it.

  CyberDoc






Thread