Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 09 Sep 2006 11:45:17 -0700
"John E. Hadstate" <jh113355@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
That said, Skipjack was originally conceived to be
distributed as Type I encryption--that is, the algorithm was
supposed to remain secret and inaccessible
The definition of type 1 product is somewhat more stringent
(http://www.cnss.gov/Assets/pdf/cnssi_4009.pdf p. 64):
Type 1 product:
Cryptographic equipment, assembly or component classified or
certified by NSA for encrypting and decrypting classified and
sensitive national security information when appropriately keyed.
Developed using established NSA business processes and containing
NSA approved algorithms. Used to protect systems requiring the
most stringent protection mechanisms.
I'd never heard before that Skipjack was conceived to be used in type
1 products, i.e. that the algorithm was approved for anything above SBU.
I'd be interested to hear more.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_1_encryption
.
- References:
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: Glenn P.,
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: Peter Fairbrother
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: Glenn P.,
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: Peter Fairbrother
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: clark
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: Peter Fairbrother
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: clark
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: Peter Fairbrother
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: Mark Wooding
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: Unruh
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- From: John E. Hadstate
- Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- Prev by Date: gnu crypto windows native compliation with gcj
- Next by Date: Chaocipher in Cryptologia
- Previous by thread: Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- Next by thread: Re: Are These Algorithms Good?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|