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

Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
From: Carl Ellison <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 10:49:29 EDT
Cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: [email protected]'s message of Thu, 14 Jul 94 08:21:51 EDT <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]

have you considered

	des | tran | des | tran | des ?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
  - From: [email protected]

References:
- Why triple encryption instead of split+encrypt?
  - From: [email protected]

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