Re: Maybe we only need PCBC...
jsavard_at_ecn.ab.ca
Date: 06/30/03
- Previous message: Jeff Mott: "JS-PW-Protect"
- In reply to: Andrew Swallow: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- Next in thread: Andrew Swallow: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- Reply: Andrew Swallow: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 04:33:58 GMT
Andrew Swallow (am.swallow@eatspam.btinternet.com) wrote:
: CRC checksums are designed to handle low to medium error rates
: generated by natural causes. Encrypting both the packet and the
: checksum makes successfully performing undetected changes to
: message difficult providing the CRCs location is also hidden.
: A factor to remember is that total corruption of the message can
: fool the CRC checker. CRC16 will pass 1 out of every 65,536
: incorrect packets on a high error link. CRC32 can survive
: 4,294,967,296 incorrect packets.
Of course, with a block cipher with a 128-bit block size, a CRC-128
checksum is being proposed.
John Savard
- Previous message: Jeff Mott: "JS-PW-Protect"
- In reply to: Andrew Swallow: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- Next in thread: Andrew Swallow: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- Reply: Andrew Swallow: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
