On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:47:21AM -0300, Trevor Smith wrote:
> On 10-Apr-06, at 9:52 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> >Backwards compatibility. CAST5 has been around it seems forever.
> >AES256 hasn't.
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> >It's fine to use AES256, just don't do it with "cipher-algo AES256".
> >Use "perso
On 10-Apr-06, at 9:52 AM, David Shaw wrote:
Backwards compatibility. CAST5 has been around it seems forever.
AES256 hasn't.
Ah, I see.
It's fine to use AES256, just don't do it with "cipher-algo AES256".
Use "personal-cipher-prefs" instead, and list the ciphers you prefer
thanks for the ti
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 11:11:48PM -0300, Trevor Smith wrote:
> On 9-Apr-06, at 7:28 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> >MDC can be forced on via --force-mdc. As Werner said, the preference
>
> Excellent. So, the follow-up question is, should one use this option
> for files symmetrically encrypted for lon
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:12:33 -0400, David Shaw said:
> AES256 is vastly stronger than most people need in practice. Heck,
> CAST5 is vastly stronger than most people need in practice. Even so,
For some application there is one point which makes AES stronger that
CAST5 or similar: AES works on 12
On 9-Apr-06, at 7:28 PM, David Shaw wrote:
MDC can be forced on via --force-mdc. As Werner said, the preference
Excellent. So, the follow-up question is, should one use this option
for files symmetrically encrypted for long-term storage (like if
burned to a CD)?
system will automaticall
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 07:57:00PM -0400, John W. Moore III wrote:
> Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > David Shaw wrote:
> >> That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
> >> cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
> >> Yes, but that's that not to say tha
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:44:18PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
> > cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
> > Yes, but that's that not to say that CAST5 is broken somehow: AES25
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>> That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
>> cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
>> Yes, but that's that not to say that CAST5 is broken somehow: A
David Shaw wrote:
> That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
> cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
> Yes, but that's that not to say that CAST5 is broken somehow: AES256
> is just twice as large.
Forgive me for being pedantic, but I'd like t
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 03:27:17PM -0300, Trevor Smith wrote:
> Some time ago there were questions about the warning message:
>
> gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
>
> that gpg outputs when decrypting *some* symmetrically encrypted
> texts. Werner Koch wrote in
> http://lists.gn
Some time ago there were questions about the warning message:
gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
that gpg outputs when decrypting *some* symmetrically encrypted
texts. Werner Koch wrote in
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2004-October/023500.html
that:
That messag
11 matches
Mail list logo
