Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 From: bmearns <mearns.b@xxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:38:36 0700 (PDT)
On Apr 26, 1:59 pm, "J.D." <degolyer...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:41 pm, bmearns <mearn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If
a smaller deck is used, then this sort of vulnerability would fade
much more quickly, right?
Intuitively it seems like that should be the case, though I don't have
a proof either one way or the other.
Yes, unfortunately formal (or even informal) proofs for cryptographic
algorithms are nothing like my strong point. I'll see what sort of
testing I can come up with for it.
Thanks, again.
Brian
.
 FollowUps:
 Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 From: Maaartin
 Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 References:
 Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 From: bmearns
 Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 From: J.D.
 Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 From: bmearns
 Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 From: J.D.
 Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 Prev by Date: bad client public DH value
 Next by Date: Re: Antispam strategies
 Previous by thread: Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 Next by thread: Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm
 Index(es):
Relevant Pages
