Subject: Re: FUD about CGD and GBDE
To: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <email@example.com>
Date: 03/03/2005 21:43:10
In message <Pine.NEB.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Todd Vierling writes:
>On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> At the time where I wrote GBDE, the best that was offered was CGD (and
>> similar) and users (not cryptographers!) didn't trust it
>Could you back up this claim, insofar that "users" did not trust cgd? I
>haven't seen any distrust of cgd -- in fact, I've seen quite a bit of
>welcome acceptace of cgd by both users *and* cryptographers.
Some of the people I talked to were very unhappy about the same key
being used for all sectors on the disk. Even a small weakness in
the cipher becomes a big hole because of the amount of data this
offers for analysis.
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.