<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: Renato Salles <rsalles,AT,rsnetservices,DOT,com,DOT,br>
Subject: RE: CRC32 - thoughts on Gutmann response
From: "Dick St.Peters" <stpeters,AT,NetHeaven,DOT,com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:36:00 -0400
Cc: "Eric M. Hopper" <hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org>, cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309260342001.3642-100000@libra.rsnetservices.com.br>
References: <1064557595.7652.134.camel@monster.omnifarious.org><Pine.LNX.4.44.0309260342001.3642-100000@libra.rsnetservices.com.br>

Renato Salles writes:

> Well, IMHO "some good encryption" is not enough. Very good encryption and 
> near impossible to be "cracked" is enough.

I am amused at the number of people saying this in cleartext email :)

There are situations where you need ironclad encryption, situations
where you don't need any encryption at all, and situations where a
little privacy is desireable but not vital.

Encryption is not the only thing affecting a network's security; it's
a partner with authentication and access control.  There are contexts
where you don't care if anyone intercepts your info as long as you're
sure who sent it, and there are cases where controlling access is all
that matters.

The number of cases where "Pretty Good" encryption has been cracked in
the field is dwarfed by the number of security breaches from human
error, so I rate simplicity a lot higher than the ironcladness of
encryption.  CIPE is simple to configure and even simpler to use, so I
rate it highly even without any encryption improvements.  If the
encryption can be improved without sacrificing simplicity, so much the
better.  However, CIPE as it is now is good enough for most (not all)
of the cases I care about.

Dick St.Peters, stpeters,AT,NetHeaven,DOT,com 

<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]