Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
We don't bite newbies here... much
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: public key encryption

by perrin (Chancellor)
on Jun 01, 2004 at 18:15 UTC ( #358342=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: public key encryption
in thread public key encryption

Are you saying that you don't believe public key encryption is a well-understood problem at this point? It was my impression that it makes very little difference which method one uses. All of the ones I've seen seem to support what I want do, i.e. encrypt with a public key and decrypt with a private key later on a separate machine.


Comment on Re: Re: public key encryption
Re: Re: Re: public key encryption
by MidLifeXis (Prior) on Jun 02, 2004 at 17:17 UTC

    No, but if you have requirements that you need to meet as well (customer only uses MS products, legal will not allow anything with GNU in it, key size limitations, implementation limitations (netscape and poor initial seed selection, anyone?), strength of cipher used, and so on), then those should be evaluated first, or at least balanced with the desire to use the XYZ API.

    A problem being well understood does not preclude a solution from having flaws in either design or implementation, nor does it preclude other requirements from limiting your solution set. If you have no requirements other than that0 you can transform it into and out of a secure1 form, then ignore my post.

    That is all that I am saying.

    --MidLifeXis

    1 - any definition of "secure" brings along with it other baggage, which I would also consider as requrements.

    Updates:

    (minor) 0 - Added missing word.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://358342]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-07-30 06:30 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (229 votes), past polls