Very basic questions
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: Counted Hash Basics
Next: Certicate chain
From: John Bischoff on 29 Mar 2010 00:23 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:19:34 -0400, John Bischoff <mingol(a)roadrunner.com> wrote: |Gentlemen |Maybe I have the wrong venue, but than maybe one of you knowledgeable gents will |kindly enlighten me. |Last I heard, PGP provided pretty solid security. Is that still the case? <snip> A nicer bunch of gents is not to be found. Thanks, gentlemen, for the clear and encouraging responses, they were exactly what I needed. May Heaven smile upon you all. John
From: Tom St Denis on 29 Mar 2010 09:39 On Mar 27, 1:40 pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > On 2010-03-27, John Bischoff <min...(a)roadrunner.com> wrote: > > > Gentlemen > > Maybe I have the wrong venue, but than maybe one of you knowledgeable gents will > > kindly enlighten me. > > Last I heard, PGP provided pretty solid security. Is that still the case? > > Is there anything better, and about as easy to use, these days? > > I'll wish to encrypt a file up to several MB, and maybe a whole drive. > > PGP is a message system. For simply encrypting files it uses one of a > list of standard encryption algorithms, and is not better or worse than > a standalone program that just does that encryption. The whole public > key infrastructure that PGP is based on is irrelevant for file > encryption. Not really. First off, PGP can encrypt files with conventional crypto [e.g. just a password]. But encrypting things to your public key has the advantage that you need only remember the password for your private key. And just in case you're confused, PGP can also deal with raw binary data, it doesn't have to base64 encode everything. Tom
From: jmorton123 on 12 Apr 2010 22:12 I wouldn't rely on any encryption method I was not capable of understanding or did not understand fully. If I could not directly and easily determine the security of the method and verify its functionality I wouldn't rely on it: I wouldn't rely on someone else's expertise or recommendation. I'd look for another encryption method. JM On Mar 26, 6:19 pm, John Bischoff <min...(a)roadrunner.com> wrote: > Gentlemen > Maybe I have the wrong venue, but than maybe one of you knowledgeable gents will > kindly enlighten me. > Last I heard, PGP provided pretty solid security. Is that still the case? > Is there anything better, and about as easy to use, these days? > I'll wish to encrypt a file up to several MB, and maybe a whole drive. > I'll wish to use it for two-way, friend-to-friend file sharing. > Naturally, the better the resistance to brute force the better. > Thanks, gents > John
From: Richard Outerbridge on 12 Apr 2010 22:25 In article <4f76f111-f882-41d7-b51a-eb75269ad421(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, jmorton123 <jmorton123(a)rock.com> wrote: > I wouldn't rely on any encryption method I was not capable of > understanding or did not understand fully. If I could not directly > and easily determine the security of the method and verify its > functionality I wouldn't rely on it: I wouldn't rely on someone > else's expertise or recommendation. > > I'd look for another encryption method. > > JM > > On Mar 26, 6:19�pm, John Bischoff <min...(a)roadrunner.com> wrote: > > Gentlemen > > Maybe I have the wrong venue, but than maybe one of you knowledgeable gents > > will > > kindly enlighten me. > > Last I heard, PGP provided pretty solid security. Is that still the case? > > Is there anything better, and about as easy to use, these days? > > I'll wish to encrypt a file up to several MB, and maybe a whole drive. > > I'll wish to use it for two-way, friend-to-friend file sharing. > > Naturally, the better the resistance to brute force the better. > > Thanks, gents > > John So, you're saying you currently rely on an encryption method you are capable of understanding fully? Moreover, you can directly and easily determine the security of the method and verify its functionality? And all this without "... relying on someone else's expertise or recommendation." Do tell. outer
From: WTShaw on 15 Apr 2010 02:38
On Apr 12, 9:25 pm, Richard Outerbridge <ou...(a)interlog.com> wrote: > In article > > So, you're saying you currently rely on an encryption method you are > capable of understanding fully? Moreover, you can directly and easily > determine the security of the method and verify its functionality? And > all this without "... relying on someone else's expertise or > recommendation." > One would wish that an algorithm is designed by someone who understands more rather than less. If experts disagree, and they do, who do you trust...sorry Johnny....Whom do you trust? It is better to know more than less, then, learn even more. |