Re: Universal re-encryption

From: Paul Rubin (//phr.cx_at_NOSPAM.invalid)
Date: 11/26/03 

Date: 26 Nov 2003 12:40:17 -0800

Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes:
> Again, my thanks to Paul and everyone else for all the help.
>
> If you want to know the details of my improved re-encryption method I've got
> a paper at http://www.m-o-o-t.org/ICURpaper3.pdf wot explains it. Any
> comments welcome.

I'd been meaning to look at your posts and maybe that url more
closely, but so far haven't had a chance. I'm still completely
unconvinced of the need for the kind of rekeying you've described in
any practical system. Also I'd meant to mention, the Hellman-Pohlig
cipher is patented, so maybe you need to be careful about deploying it.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: xjo
    ... a cipher or something? ... They've been popping up all over usenet. ... Paul D. Boyle ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: How secure is SSL emails?
    ... Peter Fairbrother says... ... >> Unless you are using OTP, I don't see how you can possibly justify saying ... >unconditionally secure. ... >Actually, such a cipher might be just around the corner, but that's another ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: License questions
    ... Peter Fairbrother wrote: ... >Paul J Gans wrote ... >> in the dark as a result. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Whats known as the best text compression methed for regular text files?
    ... > Paul, I know wtf I'm talking about, I've made encryption programs ... Anyone can make a cipher, or an encryption program, that they ... __ Paul Crowley ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • commuting?/non-group cipher?
    ... Some ciphers have the property that a double encryption can always be ... does anyone know a reason why "commuting " cipher would not be okay? ... Peter Fairbrother ...
    (sci.crypt)