Tim Churches wrote: >Of course, future computers might be much, much faster, or a 160-bit >quantum computer may be able to examine all the possibilities for a >160-bit symmetrical key all at once and crack it instantly...but I am >not worried yet. The point is that if secrets need to be maintained, >then one must be prepared to re-encrypt them using better algorithms >and/or longer keys as the decryption technology advances. You should not >assume that once encrypted, secrets will be safe forever, although with >a reasonable choice of key length, you probably only have to worry every >10 years or so. But where are the systems to remind us of things which >were encrypted 10 years ago?
Of course, if you encrypt information using current key lengths, then re-encrypting it in the future with a stronger key would be pointless if the more weakly encrypted version was still available. Once it's out there, it is out there. Regards George George James Software 42-44 High Street Shepperton Middlesex TW17 9 AU United Kingdom Tools, Training, Technology www.georgejames.com +44-1932-252568
