Re: A case for 2560 bit keys

["Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com>]

On  9 Jul 96 at 13:57, jim bell wrote:
[..]
> The most negative part of a long key is the false sense of security it may 
> engender in the weak-minded:  All key sizes are equally insecure from a 
> computer black-bag job or a specially-engineered virus.  If you're really 

Good point... but why limit false sense of security as to what
governments or corporations can do.  Poor passphrases, leaving
plaintext files around (perhaps not wiping them), and even having
incriminating conversations with folks on the 'net one doesn't know
under the belief that encryption makes it safe, etc. etc. are probably
more dangerous security holes.

Rob.
 
---
No-frills sig.
Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help"
Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl@unix.asb.com (root@magneto)
        AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.