[13177] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: The Pure Crypto Project's Hash Function
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Honig)
Sat May 3 21:31:37 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 16:58:23 -0700
To: Ralf Senderek <ralf@senderek.de>,
Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
From: David Honig <dahonig@cox.net>
Cc: "cryptography@metzdowd.com" <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0305032020480.2631-100000@safe.senderek.de>
At 08:41 PM 5/3/03 +0200, Ralf Senderek wrote:
>And the original question was not why I am not willing to use sha1 but
>if the Pure Crypto Hash is secure. I really would like to know the
>list's assessment on this.
>
>
>Comments and criticism always welcome.
>
>Ralf.
RSA is a fine encryption function if you don't mind
it being a thousand times or so slower than a 'conventional
block cipher. Its as trusted as AES (snort) or less
government approved ciphers.
Obviously folks here haven't figured out that you're
getting this tattooed onto your skin :-) in which
case conciseness beats implementation speed.
PS: "PCP" in American english denotes a dissociative
anesthetic, sometimes abused, so caveat emptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
