>I presume if he fails to deliver the goods on time you'll henceforth
>consider 56 bit secure, in all eternity (=5-10 years)?
>
Hardly.
If you read my original message, I said I didn't think it was particularly secure.
However, Bob claimed that it was "completely*crackable", in a very short
period of time, for a trivial amount of money.
>Strange kind of reasoning.
Strange reading of my comments.
However, you're not the only one.
Bob certainly didn't read it.
In case you can't find it here's the relevant part of the message:
On Tue Oct 26, 1999, I wrote:
>Actually, Bob that's a cheap shot. "completely - crackable 56 bits"
>indeed. You have no idea what the algorithm is like, so you can't be sure of that.
>
>And that's the rub.
>
>On the other hand, since you have no idea what the algorithm is like, you can't
>have any confidence that it's any good. You just have to wait and see if anyone
>cracks it (or were you going to do that yourself?).
>
>Mike, Aram and company are pushing this as a secure way to store files
>on your local hard disk, and keep your kid sister from reading your files.
>(Right, Mike?)
>
>Frankly, I believe that it accomplishes that.
>
>What I want is something that will keep major governments from reading my files.
>
>I have no confidence that it will accomplish that, and there is nothing that Apple can
>say that will give me that confidence. Only by documenting the algorithms, file
>formats
>and implementations, and letting me (and people better at it than me)
>test/break/analyze
>it, and in a few years, I might begin to believe it.
I await your apology (but I don't really expect one)
[ No one caught the reference to "Applied Cryptography", either. :-( ]
-- Marshall
Marshall Clow Adobe Systems <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"ZenCrafters: Total Enlightenment in about an hour"
