|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 07:41:43 -0800 To: bill.stewart@pobox.com From: Rodney Thayer <rodney@tillerman.nu> Cc: cryptography@c2.net In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981228204913.00979c60@idiom.com> What I heard (from a CheckPoint developer, who had access to the source code) was that FWZ-1 was a home-grown algorithm and used a key length somewhere around 64 bits (can't remember exactly.) I tried to get a publically discussable copy of the algorithm at the time and failed. It was my impression they aren't using FWZ-1 much any more, dunno if that's correct. If someone wants a new algorithm to play with, pick an AES candidate... the horserace is on and the stands at the racetrack aren't full yet :-) At 08:49 PM 12/28/98 -0800, you wrote: >At 02:07 PM 12/28/98 -0800, Alan Olsen wrote: >>I need general and/or specific information on the FWZ-1 algorythm. >>This is used by the Firewall-1 VPN software. >>I have been trying to find details beyond the marketing hype. >>Wanting to know just how bad it is beyond "exportable protocol". > >Unless I'm mixing it up with a different firewall maker's algorithm, >FWZ-1 is another "Our trademark lawyers won't let us call it RC4", >and if it's exportable it's probably 40 bits, though perhaps they've >been allowed to upgrade to 48 or 56 bits. > > > Thanks! > Bill >Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com >PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |