Re: manual cryptography
From: Andrew Swallow (am.swallow_at_eatspam.btinternet.com)
Date: 10/30/03
- Next message: Jeff: "Re: manual cryptography"
- Previous message: Mxsmanic: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- In reply to: John Savard: "Re: manual cryptography"
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: manual cryptography"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:35:58 +0000 (UTC)
"John Savard" <jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f9fa7fc.867997@news.ecn.ab.ca...
[snip]
> Given that a cipher system is not considered secure unless it can
> withstand an attack on the key alone, with the adversary knowing the
> basic method, that runs into a problem right there, because memorizing
> a key that is effectively 128 bits long is tricky.
>
128 bits may be hard to remember but 10 words are not.
Andrew Swallow
- Next message: Jeff: "Re: manual cryptography"
- Previous message: Mxsmanic: "Re: NSA chooses ECC"
- In reply to: John Savard: "Re: manual cryptography"
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: manual cryptography"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]