On 7 May 1999, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Andrew Gillham <gillhaa@ghost.whirlpool.com> writes:
> > Perry E. Metzger writes:
> > > 2) Domestic is worthless anyway. Who wants 1DES based Kerb IV anyway?
> > 
> > So why is this "broken" implementation still in the tree then?

Because it is useful in certain settings. When I was at Stanford, I used
it all the time, quite effectively.

Take care,

Bill