Re: Double Encryption Illegal?

In article <8q1tea$bhp$1_at_merope.saaf.se>,   pausch_at_saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <8pvnav$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 ??? Read my message. Geez. I said "double" encryption is not the way to go about added security.

Tom

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Sun Sep 17 2000 - 12:40:59 CEST