On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Nicholas Cole wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Henry Hertz Hobbit
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Paradoxically, AES256 & AES192 had
>> weaknesses that made them less safe than AES (AES-128) several
>> years back. May I humbly suggest TWOFISH or one of the
>>
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Pete Stephenson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Nicholas Cole wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Henry Hertz Hobbit
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> Paradoxically, AES256 & AES192 had
>>> weaknesses that made them less safe than AES (AES-128) se
My main point is furtheron because I reply inline
On 02/09/13 06:04, Henry Hertz Hobbit wrote:
> CAST5 is a good last choice because some of the time that is all others can
> handle. Make sure CAST5 is always a last or next to last choice because that
> may be all that they can do with a limited h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi everyone.
The last gpg-agent supports ECDSA and putty's pageant.
But, does it support ECDSA for putty/pageant ?
Regards.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: APG v1.0.8
iQI7BAEBCAAlBQJSJbADHhxNdXN0cnVtIDxNdXN0cnVtQE11c3RydW0ubmV0PgAK
CRBMuv2
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013, Nicholas Cole wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Pete Stephenson
> >
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Nicholas Cole
> > >
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Henry Hertz Hobbit
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Paradoxical
On 9/3/2013 12:49 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> 3DES is safe. It's incredibly safe! How is it no match for modern CPU
> power? There are no practical attacks on 3DES. What are you trying to
> say?
I have said this many times in the past; apparently I need to say it again.
"3DES has been turning bril
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi everyone.
The last gpg-agent supports ECDSA and putty's pageant.
But, does it support ECDSA for putty/pageant ?
Regards.
Ps: oups, sorry for my last message without any subject, bad clicking...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: APG v1.0
On 09/03/2013 04:49 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> To expand on what Johan Wevers said: symmetric ciphers do not change the
> length
> of the encrypted text (by more than the block size). They certainly do not
> compress. Usually, data is compressed before encrypting it (compressing it
> after
> is