Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?
From: Joe Peschel (jpeschel_at_no.spam.org)
Date: 07/19/05
- Next message: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Previous message: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Needle in a haystack--or is this just stupid?"
- In reply to: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Next in thread: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Reply: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Reply: Joe Peschel: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:12:52 -0000
Crypto@S.M.S wrote in news:11dolib5auvkm5f@news.supernews.com:
> Joe Peschel wrote:
>>
>>
>> Even Ritter admits that adding a second cipher could weaken the first
>> cipher.
>>
>
> No he doesn't.
Yes, he does but he thinks it unlikely.
>
> http://www.ciphersbyritter.com/NEWS6/KNOWNPLN.HTM
But see:
http://www.ciphersbyritter.com/GLOSSARY.HTM#MultipleEncryption
You certainly but a lot of faith in Ritter. Even he describes himself an
engineer, not a cryptologist.
>
>>
>>
>>>Which begins with a quote from Shannon
>>>
>>> I have long proposed using a multiciphering "stack" of ciphers,
>>> instead of just one which could be weak beyond our knowledge. I
>>> have long proposed using multiple ciphers instead of just one, to
>>> end any "break" which might exist.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's not a quote from Shannon. It's quote from Ritter.
>>
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>>
>
> Are you sure? Have you looked closely at pages 656-715 of the 1949
> Bell System Technical Journal?
>
Yes, I'm sure. I've looked at the paper. You obviously have not.
J
-- __________________________________________ http://www.impeach-bush-now.org Joe Peschel D.O.E. SysWorks http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm __________________________________________
- Next message: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Previous message: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Needle in a haystack--or is this just stupid?"
- In reply to: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Next in thread: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Reply: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Reply: Joe Peschel: "Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|