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

Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?

To: solman@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
From: Carl Ellison <cme@tis.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 10:49:29 EDT
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: solman@MIT.EDU's message of Thu, 14 Jul 94 08:21:51 EDT <9407141221.AA06307@ua.MIT.EDU>
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com

have you considered

	des | tran | des | tran | des ?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
  - From: solman@MIT.EDU

References:
- Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
  - From: solman@MIT.EDU

Prev by Date: Security is not free
Next by Date: Re: Probabilistic Encryption
Prev by thread: Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
Next by thread: Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread