[3948] in WWW Security List Archive
RE: Universal Data Cryptography Module V
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Davidson, Clyde)
Fri Jan 10 16:48:51 1997
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:03:00 -0600
From: "Davidson, Clyde" <CDAVIDSO@is.nmh.nmh.org>
To: btherl <btherl@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>,
www-security <www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>, jwp <jwp@chem.ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Yes, it matters. No, I won't fully trust my data that needs top security
with any new algorithm. However, I am willing to try it on less critical
data. How else is it going to pass the test of "public scrutiny"?
Clyde Davidson
----------
From: jwp[SMTP:jwp@chem.ucsd.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 1997 12:36 PM
To: CDAVIDSO; btherl; www-security
Subject: RE: Universal Data Cryptography Module V
> From: "Davidson, Clyde" <CDAVIDSO@is.nmh.nmh.org>
>
> While [h]is algorithm may not be proven, do you know that it is
faulty,
> unworkable, or insecure in any way?
Does it matter? Would *you* trust encrypting *your* data with an
algorithm
that has not been subject to public scrutiny?
-- John W Pierce, Chem & Biochem, UC San Diego
jwp@ucsd.edu
