home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 11:32:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com> To: Ralf Senderek <ralf@senderek.de> Cc: "cryptography@metzdowd.com" <cryptography@metzdowd.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0305031723060.2035-100000@safe.senderek.de> > > Isn't it better to have clean implementations of known algorithms that > > have been widely understood and studied by the cryptographic community? > > That's why RSA is used in the project. But you "invented" a new hashing mechanism. Why do you think the industry has settled on RSA/SHA1 as a standard? I also forgot to ask if we haven't learned enough from PGP: interop is important. What's your compelling reason to throw that away? I think this is a real bad approach. /r$ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |