Re: Which algorithm would YOU choose for...

From: David A. Scott (daVvid_a_scott_at_email.com)
Date: 10/15/03 

Date: 15 Oct 2003 11:15:10 GMT

wrong way philbin <wwp@snaggle.com> wrote in
news:760qovctmkh4jknrc58rerbaljr55rfv2j@4ax.com:

>
> So I'll just re-reference it for you and recommend that you actually
> go read it: http://csrc.nist.gov/
>
> This is a federal agency that you should take seriously, and with
> knowledge, not just faith.
>
> They are really serious about this whole AES thing. So are most of
> the worlds leading (non-spook Gwyn, non-spook) cryptographers.
>
> Now if you want to conveniently pretend that the best in the world
> (that we commoners know about) haven't designed a solid cryptosystem,
> and somehow intimate that it is likely to be broken to the point that
> results in decryption of data, then go ahead.
>
> But you would be incorrect.
>
>

   You have to much faith in the goverment. It will be essential broken
before the century is out. But since you lack much experience with the
government it easy to see where you could get the wrong ideas. I think
part of the proof of lack of seriousness occurred when the bijective
padding was not even considered for the full block CBC mode.

David A. Scott 

-- 
My Crypto code
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott19u.zip
http://cryptography.org/cgi-bin/crypto.cgi/Misc/scott16u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
 made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"