[51939] in Cypherpunks
Re: Cryptanalysis
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Tighe)
Mon Mar 11 10:14:10 1996
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@spectrum.titan.com>
To: EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. ALLEN SMITH)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:10:28 -0600 (CST)
Cc: tcmay@got.net, cypherpunks@toad.com
Reply-To: tighe@spectrum.titan.com
In-Reply-To: <01I25ASYNMT6AKTUGH@mbcl.rutgers.edu> from "E. ALLEN SMITH" at Mar 9, 96 07:58:00 pm
>There are very good reasons to say little about "conventional
>cryptanalysis": it just doesn't matter much with modern ciphers, such as
>public key systems. Modern ciphers don't fall to conventional attacks based
>on word frequency, pattern analysis, etc.
I disagree with this, and think that in the next 10-25 years we will find
that most of the systems we are using today were as easily broken as the
systems of yester-year (Enigma, Japanese Codes ,etc).
