On 26 May 2005 14:45:28 -0700, rumours say that Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have written:
>> That's all. I see you took up the challenge and indirectly replied to >> my last question, and in good spirit I say you earned a little respect >> from me, at least for standing up to your words. Now I hope no-one >> gives a try to your data (for your own sake :) >I don't think the challenge was really accepted. The algorithm >changed between when you issued the challenge, and when the sensitive >data went up. A good algorithm doesn't need to change depending on >the data. I agree with the poster who said that the strength of >either one of the algorithms is irrelevant, if the keyspace is just 32 >bits. You are correct; the algorithm changed, and the OP admitted it himself in the post with the encrypted credit card data. However, on a practical level: before posting, I did a quick comparison, and the only effective change to OP's algorithm was a the addition of a `random.shuffle(sequence)', which AFAIU has no practical consequences as to whether his algorithm is unbreakable or not. I could say that "hey, you changed the algorithm, and that means your previous declaration of unbreakability wasn't." but honestly I was overwhelmed by the audacity (and foolishness, if these are truly his credit card data) of Frederic. ObSF: DNA; The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe; Marvin the paranoid android faces a gigantic black tank in the H2G2 HQ. -- TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best. "Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving." (from RFC1958) I really should keep that in mind when talking with people, actually... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
