[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Windows for Workgroups 3.11

To: Mike Markley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Windows for Workgroups 3.11
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 1994 13:48:19 -0400
Cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Jul 1994 10:31:30 +0700." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]


Mike Markley says:
> I'll definitely agree that for something as binding as a signature that 
> I would want to have a very large key. For daily communication it seems 
> that fairly weak keys should be more than adequate as long as they 
> can't be broken in a reasonable amount of time.

Historical traffic only a few months old is way too interesting for me
to accept that. One of the real advantages of Diffie-Hellman style
systems is, by the way, the protection they provide against breaking
historical traffic.

Perry

References:
- Re: Windows for Workgroups 3.11
  - From: Mike Markley <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Secure Drive insecure? NOT
Next by Date: Re: Windows for Workgroups 3.11
Prev by thread: Re: Windows for Workgroups 3.11
Next by thread: Re: Windows for Workgroups 3.11
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread