Re: Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical.
From: clem (clem_at_numeral.com)
Date: 09/16/03
- Next message: David Wagner: "Re: Does quantum cryptography actually work?"
- Previous message: Bryan Olson: "Re: RSA key sizes - Part 2"
- In reply to: Fredric L. Rice: "Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical."
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical."
- Reply: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical."
- Reply: Bruce Stephens: "Re: Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:23:47 -0700
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:13:50 GMT, frice@skeptictank.org (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
>Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical.
>
You're preaching (in long-winded fashion) to the choir, mate.
- Next message: David Wagner: "Re: Does quantum cryptography actually work?"
- Previous message: Bryan Olson: "Re: RSA key sizes - Part 2"
- In reply to: Fredric L. Rice: "Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical."
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical."
- Reply: Mxsmanic: "Re: Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical."
- Reply: Bruce Stephens: "Re: Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Loading
