Re: Double Encryption Illegal?

In article <39C4C272.43B6086F_at_t-online.de>, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen_at_t-online.de> wrote:

> Ah, I understand. In your definition there is never
> any multiple encryption and a superencipherment is
> simply a single (big) encipherment, there being
> (presumably in your view) no need to mention that the
> whole is made of certain (in general) different
> components. I don't partake your viewpoint. For the
> components can, and are in fact commonly, used and
> evaluated singly. It is the art of combination that
> is of interest in a multiple encryption. We need to
> know (to emphasize) what the components are and how
> they get combined.
>
> M. K. Shen

Yes, that is a scientific question, and I have no quibble with such. The legal parry is something else.

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