Messages in this thread |  | | From | (Jesus Eugenio Sanchez) | Subject | RE: [PATCH] DES LOOP Support | Date | Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:02:37 -0500 |
| |
There are several symmetric encryption methods, among them SAFER-SK64, which is freely available and claims to be quite strong. I'm no mathematician, though, so don't take my word for it.
DES is not the only option for implementing encryption at the low level.
--jesp
---------- From: Kevin M Bealer[SMTP:kmb203@psu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 1996 7:53 PM To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Cc: nicholas@binary9.net; linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH] DES LOOP Supportx
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> Nicholas J. Leon: > > <DES patch deleted> > (clip) > On the one hand they are almost unuseably slow, and on the other > hand it is asking for trouble. > > You could put your patch up for ftp someplace, preferably outside the USA. > What about adding a reasonably good and reasonably fast encryption? > > Andries
DES is a fairly recent US government standard correct? The US government has proposed that all encryption methods have back doors so that the government can get into them, correct? Would they have designed DES in such a way that it is unbreakable, or in such a way that a person who knew how to get into it, can do so at will.
Ergo DES is compromised, and it is only until whoever wants to bad enough can buy from the right person(1) or figure out what the method is.
It looks to me like anything powerful enough to be really secure will be very slow for full system encryption.. (I am thinking mostly of RSA/MD5 based things which I admittedly don't know enough about.)
(1) am I suggesting there may be non-angelic people in the gov't? who might even be for sale(2)? .... shame on me.
(2) am I allowed to say this? (looking both ways)
__kmb203@psu.edu_________________________Debian__1.1___Linux__2.0.0___ Error: this signature should not appear. If you see this signature, ...
|  |