Bugtraq mailing list archives
Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?!
From: entropy () IntNet net (Jonathan Cooper)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 20:35:44 -0500 (EST)
Correct me if I am wrong - RC2 and RC4 are not public key cyrptosystems, and hence are not "prone" to the problems with low moduli.
You are wrong. If the key is only 128-bit, that's a much smaller keyspace to brute-force attack than a 1024-bit key. (do the math) -jon ( --------[ Jonathan D. Cooper ]--------[ entropy () intnet net ]-------- ) ( PGP 2.6.2 keyprint: 31 50 8F 82 B9 79 ED C4 5B 12 A0 35 E0 9B C0 01 ) ( home page: http://taz.hyperreal.com/~entropy/ ]---[ Key-ID: 4082CCB5 )
Current thread:
- Re: Lotus Notes Encryption Methods Dr. Frederick B. Cohen (Mar 14)
- Re: Lotus Notes Encryption Methods Perry E. Metzger (Mar 14)
- Re: Lotus Notes Encryption Methods Vishy Gopalakrishnan (Mar 14)
- Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?! Jonathan Cooper (Mar 15)
- Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?! Mark G. Scheuern (Mar 15)
- Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?! That Whispering Wolf... (Mar 16)
- Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?! Software Test Account (Mar 16)
- Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?! Adam Shostack (Mar 17)
- Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?! Allan Sutton (Mar 17)
- Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?! Jonathan Cooper (Mar 15)
- Problems with wuftpd - password logging(?) DaVe McComb (Mar 16)
- Re: Lotus Notes Encryption Methods David Miller (Mar 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Lotus Notes Encryption Methods Paul C Leyland (Mar 17)
- Re: Lotus Notes Encryption Methods William McVey (Mar 17)