Article View: sci.crypt
Article #3963Re: Another question
From: Stephen R. Tate
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1988 17:20
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1988 17:20
17 lines
1303 bytes
1303 bytes
In article <8801150155.AA11615@decwrl.dec.com> kruger@16bits.dec.com (Hart for CCCP chief in '88) writes:
>I am currently looking into a public key encryption system for a bulletin board
>network program. However, RSA is fairly CPU intensive, and the need for the
>ultimate security is not great. It would be sufficient to merely be 'difficult'
>for an average type. But the system really MUST be public key because any method
>of passing keys makes the whole thing useless.
Why no just use shorter keys in an RSA scheme? You've got a good trade-off
here between complexity of encryption and security -- if you want something
simpler and can live with less security, just make the keys shorter. Nothing
says you have to use 100 digit keys.....
--
Steve Tate UUCP: ..!{ihnp4,decvax}!duke!srt
CSNET: srt@duke
ARPA: srt@cs.duke.edu
"There ain't nothin' in the world that a T-Bone Shuffle won't cure."
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<10933@duke.cs.duke.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!gatech!mcnc!duke!srtReferences:
<8801150155.AA11615@decwrl.dec.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!gatech!mcnc!duke!srt From: srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Another question Message-ID: <10933@duke.cs.duke.edu> Date: 15 Jan 88 17:20:21 GMT References: <8801150155.AA11615@decwrl.dec.com> Reply-To: srt@duke.UUCP (Stephen R. Tate) Organization: Duke University, Durham NC Lines: 17