Re: Comments on "Encryption is Key to Securing Data" 22 Jun 98

Peter Gutmann (pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz)
Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:27:09 (NZST)

• Next message: Robert Hettinga: "Microsoft Cash 95 (tm): Untraceable???"
• Previous message: Simon R Knight: "Re: Locking physical memory (RAM) under Windows"
• In reply to: Steve Reid: "Re: Locking physical memory (RAM) under Windows"

>This note is to comment on your article, "Encryption is Key to Securing
>Data," that appeared in the 22 Jun 98 issue of InternetWeek. I'm not sure
>where to start. Almost every statement made in the copy is erroneous.

If you think that's scary, have a look at
http://www.infotech.co.nz/may_18/cxwt.html. My commentary on this (from the
Snake Oil section of my crypto link farm) is:

  "it has been mathematically proven that only a brute-force attack can break
  encryption"... "a Cray can break a 128-bit key in two days" ... "perhaps
  passing an electric current through a leaf will solve the problem" (or you
  could smoke it and then write a crypto article).

Peter.

• Next message: Robert Hettinga: "Microsoft Cash 95 (tm): Untraceable???"
• Previous message: Simon R Knight: "Re: Locking physical memory (RAM) under Windows"
• In reply to: Steve Reid: "Re: Locking physical memory (RAM) under Windows"