[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible snake oil?
Phil Fraering writes:
> I ran across this at the web site of a New Orleans area web authoring
> company. I checked with a friend of mine of long standing on this list,
> and he assured me that the information was probably false.
> (Here it is...)
> SSL & SHTTP Encrypted Web Systems (using the maximum
> 1024-bit encryption keys)
> Well? Do _any_ of you know of a 1024-bit encryption standard for the world
> wide web currently in use? According to these people, they're using it.
In non-"export" SSL using RSA as the key-exchange algorithim 1024-bit
RSA keys can be used. 128-bit RC4 is most commonly used as the
symmetric algorithim in this case.
It's not snake oil. I'd guess that some marketing-type
person found out enough about SSL to know that it uses
1024-bit RSA keys and thoght that since 1024 bits is bigger
than 128, they'd claim 1024 bit keys. There's nothing really
wrong with that.
Eric Murray [email protected] [email protected] http://www.lne.com/ericm
If you don't see the fnords, they won't eat your packets. If you do see the
fnords, they will eat your packets, so you won't see them.
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF