Re: Double Encryption Illegal?

In article <8q1tfb$bj1$1_at_merope.saaf.se>, pausch_at_saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

> In article <jgfunj-1609002156160001_at_dial-245-138.itexas.net>,
> wtshaw <jgfunj_at_vgrknf.arg> wrote:
> >
> > When a person uses 3-DES, they are single encrypting with 3-DES.
>
> FYI: 3-DES consists of three rounds of DES, using two or three
> different keys.

That is the definition of a newer algorithm than just plain DES. It is not DES.
>
> > An algorithm can be made of any conbination of steps. When two or more
> > pieces are combined, the result is one piece. Consider that such a
> > request, regulation, standard, whim, or pipe dream to limit so called
> > double encryption is a fog to confuse whereever possible; ambiguity shows
> > dualism of purpose.
>
> Nonsense! Calling the use of two encryptions in succession "double
> encryption", or three encryptions in succession "triple encryption"
> is a correct description of the procedure.

The procedure is surely part of the algorithm. The question originally dealt with a legality. Lawyers tend to try to remake the world in their own image, as they like to define arbitrarily what they want. I am saying that that is not reasonable in this case. There are other aspects in crypto where uneducated druthers don't make sense.
>
> However, "double enryption" or "triple encryption" is not always more
> secure than "single encryption". Consider for instance the good ol'
> Caesar cipher: double-Caesar or triple-Caesar will be no more secure
> than single-Caesar. But triple-DES will be more secure than single-DES.
>
 Some algorithms tend to turn quickly in upon themselves when so utilitized.

-- 
Rats! (What Gov. Bush is apt to say the morning after the election)