Re: blowfish's key len: using 576-bit keys

mgraffam@mhv.net
Thu, 2 Jul 1998 06:44:19 -0400 (EDT)

• Next message: acpizer@mach.unseen.org: "Re: MS Access 2.0"
• Previous message: Hamdi Tounsi: "Re: blowfish's key len: using 576-bit keysu"

On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Hamdi Tounsi wrote:

> hi and thanks for your help
> the objective from behind my question was not if 576-bit keys gives
> extra security. i know that they are no more secure than 448-bit keys
> and even 128-bit keys (am i too optimist ?)

Well, technically 448 bit keys _are_ more secure. That extra security
basically just happens to be meaningless because in practice, one couldn't
brute force either one.. at least this is the standard opinion.

Other might argue that this point of view is flawed because it implies
that an OTP is more or less pointless for most messages.

Personally, I'm in league with the standard view.. first, using any
non-OTP cipher automatically takes us into the realm of practical
things and out of perfect, theoretical security. Second.. OTP's _are_
more or less pointless for most messages :)

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"

• Next message: acpizer@mach.unseen.org: "Re: MS Access 2.0"
• Previous message: Hamdi Tounsi: "Re: blowfish's key len: using 576-bit keysu"