Promotion of cryptography

[Michael Bacon]

The issue is not always the potential for intrusion by (certain)government
agencies - there are others including commercial organisations, that have an
interest in breaking crypto systems to get at the product for more direct
financial gain.

Streaky
  _____
~(_____)>
  "    "
The opinions stated herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
of my employer.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	jeremy.hilton@jhconsulting.co.uk
> [mailto:jeremy.hilton@jhconsulting.co.uk]
> Sent:	24 August 1999 11:31
> To:	'ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk'
> Subject:	RE: Promotion of cryptography
> 
> I think the point here is that if _lots_ of companies and individuals used
> 56 bit encryption as a matter of routine, then attack capabilities would
> be somewhat overloaded.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 	----------
> 	From: 	Tom Thomson[SMTP:cmt@btinternet.com]
> 	Reply To: 	ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
> 	Sent: 	24 August 1999 02:12
> 	To: 	ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
> 	Subject: 	Re: Promotion of cryptography
> 
> 	Nigel
> 
> 	We all know very well that 56 bits is fairly easily crackable.
> 	There are several recorded brute force attacks on 56 bit stuff that
> have
> 	been
> 	successful in a pretty short time.
> 	Are you seriously suggesting that 56 bits can be regarded as strong
> 	encryption
> 	in this day and age?  Or is this another DTI ploy to persuade
> industry to
> 	use
> 	encryption weak enough to permit the Americans to indulge in
> industrial
> 	espionage to their hearts' content, to the detriment of British
> industry and
> 	to
> 	the support of our governments cosy toadying to American interests?
> 
> 	M.
> 
> 
> 	----- Original Message -----
> 	From: nigel hickson <nigelhickson@compuserve.com>
> 	To: <ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk>
> 	Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 11:32 PM
> 	Subject: Re: Promotion of cryptography
> 
> 
> 	Colleagues
> 
> 	Well, whilst not wanting to (yet again) blow DTI's trumpet; I think
> I can
> 	safely say that we have often given official backing to the use of
> 	encryption for both confidnetiality and integrity (see our brochures
> and
> 	statements on encryption policy). It is true we dont often say that
> we
> 	think everyone should use "strong" encryption; but this has more to
> do with
> 	the characterisation of waht is strong rather than on any security
> 	concerns.  I have often said (as many who might have heard me in
> public
> 	will testify to) that commerical organisations should consdier the
> use of
> 	strong encryption (at least 56 bits) for their commerciall dealings.
> 
> 	Nigel
> 
> 
> 
> 
>