Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better
- From: pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 26, 1:25 pm, Tom St Denis <t...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:06 pm, g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Greg Rose) wrote:I'm positive there are smart people working in the
government. My point really is to poke holes in the notion that
they're infallible, or necessarily did a great job on the ECC specs
[likewise the "need" for AES-256].
Did you ever consider the fact that their criteria differs from yours?
Or that their objectives might be different?
Nah! Of course not.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better
- From: Tom St Denis
- Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better
- References:
- Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better
- From: Greg Rose
- Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better
- Prev by Date: Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better
- Next by Date: Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better
- Previous by thread: Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better
- Next by thread: Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better
- Index(es):