Re: Cascading different algorithms?
From: Andrew Swallow (am.swallow_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 05/06/05
- Next message: steve.wildstrom_at_gmail.com: "Re: New postage stamp honors von Neumann"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: SFT: Experimentation starts"
- In reply to: Paul Cooper: "Re: Cascading different algorithms?"
- Next in thread: Joseph Ashwood: "Re: Cascading different algorithms?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:38:54 +0000 (UTC)
Paul Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005 00:58:04 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Swallow
> <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Top Secret simply requires a longer key variable (and a triple check on
>>the implementation).
>
>
> Yes, as I already wrote: "AES-192 and AES-256 were officially (NSA and
> CNSS) declared sufficient to protect classified information up to the
> Top Secret level".
>
> I am not sure if you are opposing my statement?
A straight factual statement does not need to be for or against
anything. I quoted the appropriate paragraph from the report and added
a translation to simple English.
Andrew Swallow
- Next message: steve.wildstrom_at_gmail.com: "Re: New postage stamp honors von Neumann"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: SFT: Experimentation starts"
- In reply to: Paul Cooper: "Re: Cascading different algorithms?"
- Next in thread: Joseph Ashwood: "Re: Cascading different algorithms?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]