Utter nonsense. On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 10:51:41AM -0400, Eric Benzacar wrote: > Thanks, but I undestand encryption quite well. Acutally helped design an > new concept algorithm here for a univeristy prof a couple of years ago. But > I don't kidd myself. Any and all encryption algorithms out there (no matter > how big the key) are failable. It's all a question of finding the weakness. > Granted, if you're looking at brute force attacks, where the keys change on > a regular basis, you're up against a much tougher challenge. Which is one > of the reasons that 128bit SSL encryption is considered secure. But if > you're talking about the same key encrypting and decrypting the same > information over long periods of time, it doesn't take enormous amounts of > computing power to hack through. Besides, with distributed computing > nowadays, using hundreds of thousands of processors in parallel, can you > really expect someone to believe that any encryption is secure? Even steg > is not undetectable. Difficult, certainly. Infallable? Absolutely not. > > Eric > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@cybershamanix.com> > To: "Eric Benzacar" <benze@mail-me.com> > Cc: <linux-crypto@nl.linux.org> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 10:39 AM > Subject: Re: Encrypting root partition > > > > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 03:14:18AM -0400, Eric Benzacar wrote: > > > > > > I don't expect any form of encryption to be very sturdy... But was > hoping > > > to make it just a bit more obscure.... > > > > > Encryption not sturdy? Are you kidding? Not even all the NSA > computers can > > break any of the decent modern cyphers. You seem to be more than a bit > confused > > on what this is all about, maybe you need to study some basic texts on > > encryption. > > > > > > -- > > Harmon Seaver > > CyberShamanix > > http://www.cybershamanix.com -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com - Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
