Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:19:00 ADT
mgraffam@mhv.net
Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:20:20 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, [iso-8859-1] Jesús Cea [iso-8859-1] Avión wrote:
> Why not?. I need a *simple*, *lightning* fast crypt, without setup
> overhead. Streng is important but only for "domestic" attacks, since
> each register is crypted using its unique "user provided but server
> generated" key. In fact we are using only 64 bit keys, with up-most 64
> bits set to 0. The users already have a hard time remembering 12 random
> chars (64 bits coded as two 32 bit base64).
Uh.. why not just use a hash algoritm to hash a passphrase down to
128 bits, if you really only want 64, just truncate it.
People will remember it all easier, and you'll get better security.
Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@mhv.net)
http://www.mhv.net/~mgraffam -- Philosophy, Religion, Computers, Crypto, etc
"..subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself, and now
one of the chief hindrances to human improvement.." John Stuart Mill
"The Subjection of Women"
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:19:00 ADT