Re: Double Encryption Illegal?
From: Paul Schlyter <pausch_at_saafNOSPAM.se>
Date: 17 Sep 2000 09:55:54 +0200
Message-ID: <8q1tea$bhp$1_at_merope.saaf.se>
>>
>>
>> PRdO wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO double encryption *does not* add security, i.e., double
>>> encryption in 128-bit doesn't equal better encryption.
>>> (since encryption uses random keys, "randoming" again the data
>>> would not lead to more secure data).
>>
>> If you have an algorithm that does a perfect job (do
>> you happen to have one?), then there is by definition
>> nothing to improve. Otherwise, multiple encryption may
>> help, if done properly.
>
> Ah but double encryption is not the way to go about it.
Date: 17 Sep 2000 09:55:54 +0200
Message-ID: <8q1tea$bhp$1_at_merope.saaf.se>
In article <8pvnav$gdt$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>, Tom St Denis <stdenis_at_compmore.net> wrote:
> In article <39C350A8.7F8DD52F_at_t-online.de>, > Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen_at_t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> PRdO wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO double encryption *does not* add security, i.e., double
>>> encryption in 128-bit doesn't equal better encryption.
>>> (since encryption uses random keys, "randoming" again the data
>>> would not lead to more secure data).
>>
>> If you have an algorithm that does a perfect job (do
>> you happen to have one?), then there is by definition
>> nothing to improve. Otherwise, multiple encryption may
>> help, if done properly.
>
> Ah but double encryption is not the way to go about it.
So you're claiming that triple-DES is no more secure than single-DES ???
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
Received on Sun Sep 17 2000 - 09:55:54 CEST