At 07:43 AM 6/26/99 -0700, David G. Koontz wrote: >DES isn't secure how? Certainly it isn't absolutely secure, and >probably never has been. Is it secure enough to keep a cracker from >grabbing passwords flying by? In most cases yes. The effort for >individuals to break DES is significant in terms of hardware, money >and time. PC week has a description of DARPA's requirements for a COTS DARPA-managed 50-user VPN with remote capabilities (and a 24/7 help desk...) "DARPA requires 128 bit keys, because security is more important than standards compliance". dh
- so why is IETF stilling adding DES to protocols? (Re... Anonymous
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES to proto... Jeffrey I. Schiller
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES to p... Anonymous
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES ... Ben Laurie
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES ... David Honig
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES to p... Lucky Green
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES ... William H. Geiger III
- DES vs RC4 -- A correction (Re: so why is I... Arnold G. Reinhold
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES to proto... Ben Laurie
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES to p... Jeffrey I. Schiller
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES ... Anonymous
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding DES ... Lucky Green
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding ... Ben Laurie
- Re: so why is IETF stilling adding ... Russell Nelson