g how some (slightly) older
browsers cannot handle that.
Arthur
- Original Message -
From: "Kiyoshi Watanabe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 08:39 PM
Subject: Re: high-gr
about.
-dsp
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arthur Chan
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 7:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: high-grade vs low-grade encryption with MD5 and DES
Practicality : do not use 4096 bits server side private ke
o an asymmetric cipher capable of utilizing a
4096 bit (or larger!) private key is much more appropriate.
Kind Regards,
-dsp
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arthur Chan
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 6:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: h
From: "Dave Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 07:34 PM
> Subject: RE: high-grade vs low-grade encryption with MD5 and DES
>
>
> > The "5 minutes" I mentioned doesn't implicitly refer to the amount
"compromised" is probably a poor word to use, "pointlessly weak" is
more accurate. If you're going to use SSL and you're dealing with data
that needs to be protected longer than 5 minutes, use 128bit SSL.
-dsp
On Sunday, Aug 10, 2003, at 02:25 US/Eastern, Arthur Chan wrote:
Hi all.
Verisign c
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 07:34 PM
Subject: RE: high-grade vs low-grade encryption with MD5 and DES
> The "5 minutes" I mentioned doesn't implicitly refer to the amount of time
> needed to crack the ciphertext, but more the type of data and th
days...
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 06:16 PM
Subject: Re: high-grade vs low-grade encryption with MD5 and DES
> "compromised" is probably a poor word to use, "pointlessly weak
