Re: Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical.

From: Bruce Palmer (bpalmer201_at_optonline.net)
Date: 09/16/03 

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:54:44 GMT

Fredric L. Rice spewed out:

> Meganet's "unbreakable" cryptography? I'm skeptical.
>
  <big snip>

Haven't looked at the latest version, but the version from a year ago was
written in _BASIC_ for pete's sake! Not Visual Basic, mind you, but an obscure
dialect from a fringe player in the programming language arena. I forget the
exact brand name at the moment (PowerBasic?), but it appears to have some
followers (is there any other word to describe those who use BASIC in "serious"
commercial applications?). Just because it's compiled doesn't mitigate the fact
that it's _BASIC_. With the worst user interface in history.

Hell, a program could be based on RSA, DH, Twofish and AES et al and I wouldn't
buy it if it was written in BASIC. If you replaced the snake oil guts of the
thing with AES there *still* would be a host of factors working against it.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cohens paper on byte order
    ... > Although AES interface objects should technically be encoded and exchanged ... Indeed AES deals only with a bit string and it is ... or conversion protocol is done wrong. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Filter logic for forwarding and deleting Junk?
    ... AES wrote: ... [snip by jr] ... looks for the same criteria you mentioned, but where the Recipient is ... And, just curious, why would a junk score of>98 mean a false negative? ...
    (comp.mail.eudora.mac)
  • Re: lectro stereo reciever
    ... Thats the blurb from the MIX AES show report. ...
    (rec.arts.movies.production.sound)
  • Re: AES MAC security question
    ... >> I am planning on using AES for generating the MAC, ...
    (sci.crypt)
Quantcast