Possible snake oil?
I ran across this at the web site of a New Orleans area web authoring company. I checked with a friend of mine of long standing on this list, and he assured me that the information was probably false. (Here it is...) <begin included excerpt from web page) [deleted] has one of the fastest and most powerful web networks in the world, with servers effortlessly handling in excess of two million hits a day, and resources spanning four seperate backbone providers on two continents from North America to Europe. Entire networks at [deleted] are exclusively dedicated to web hosting, electronic commerce and other applications; separate servers are available with a plethora of advanced services including: SSL & SHTTP Encrypted Web Systems (using the maximum 1024-bit encryption keys) BSDI Unix 2.1 (our main net OS, proven to be superior to all), Windows NT, Windows 95, Macintosh, DOS, Linux and other platforms available. RealAudio, VDOLive, CuSeeMe servers RAID5 mirror networks in Europe Access to [deleted] Advanced Systems Products (IASP) servers and scripts exclusively available to [deleted] clients, which include shopping cart/automated ordering, web database systems, surveys & demographics, web page creation systems, ad & quote systems, and much more. ============= <end excerpt from corporate web page> Well? Do _any_ of you know of a 1024-bit encryption standard for the world wide web currently in use? According to these people, they're using it. ObLegalQuestion: Should I have been less coy about the corporation name? Phil Fraering The above is the opinion of neither my internet pgf@acadian.net service provider nor my employer. 318/261-9649
1024 bit keylengths are commonly used with RSA, and are generally considered to be secure. Remember, key lengths can't easily be compared between algorithms from radically different familys Simon --- Cause maybe (maybe) | In my mind I'm going to Carolina you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th. And after all | Email address remains unchanged You're my firewall - | ........First in Usenet.........
On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Phil Fraering wrote:
I ran across this at the web site of a New Orleans area web authoring company. I checked with a friend of mine of long standing on this list, and he assured me that the information was probably false.
(Here it is...)
<begin included excerpt from web page)
[deleted] has one of the fastest and most powerful web networks in the
[...]
ObLegalQuestion:
Should I have been less coy about the corporation name?
It is their publication. Why should you be afraid of copying it? So long as you don't make allegations that are malicious.
Phil Fraering The above is the opinion of neither my internet pgf@acadian.net service provider nor my employer. 318/261-9649
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
Phil Fraering writes:
I ran across this at the web site of a New Orleans area web authoring company. I checked with a friend of mine of long standing on this list, and he assured me that the information was probably false.
(Here it is...)
[..]
SSL & SHTTP Encrypted Web Systems (using the maximum 1024-bit encryption keys)
[..]
Well? Do _any_ of you know of a 1024-bit encryption standard for the world wide web currently in use? According to these people, they're using it.
In non-"export" SSL using RSA as the key-exchange algorithim 1024-bit RSA keys can be used. 128-bit RC4 is most commonly used as the symmetric algorithim in this case. It's not snake oil. I'd guess that some marketing-type person found out enough about SSL to know that it uses 1024-bit RSA keys and thoght that since 1024 bits is bigger than 128, they'd claim 1024 bit keys. There's nothing really wrong with that. -- Eric Murray ericm@lne.com ericm@motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm If you don't see the fnords, they won't eat your packets. If you do see the fnords, they will eat your packets, so you won't see them. PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF
On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Phil Fraering wrote:
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 16:00:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Phil Fraering <pgf@acadian.net> To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Possible snake oil?
[Acual post deleted]
ObLegalQuestion:
Should I have been less coy about the corporation name?
It won't make a difference either way: if he company does care, it takes all of 10 seconds to prove that the message could have been fakemailed anyway... As to whether or not they'd have grounds, no, they wouldn't, assuming you didn't actually edit the quote, and assuming you didn' (and you didn't) acually acuse them of anything. You merely quesioned if they were correct, and if so, how so... which is perfectly inocent. --Deviant Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
participants (5)
-
Black Unicorn -
Eric Murray -
Phil Fraering -
Simon Spero -
The Deviant