Anonglish (was: Re: Authenticating Meat)

[Sunder]

According to Schneier doing this is a bad idea - (or so I recall from the
A.P. book which I've not reread in quite a while - I may be wrong) if you
use the same (or similar) cypher.  i.e.:
  
blowfish(blowfish(plaintext,key1),key2) is bad, 
but rsa(blowfish(plaintext,key1),privatekey) is ok.


----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---------------------------
 + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
--------_sunder_ at _sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote:

> Layer the encryptions then. A good ciphertext looks random. Take a
> ciphertext and encrypt it again, you get a - say - cipher2text. A
> decryption of cipher2text with any key then looks like a potential
> ciphertext.
> 
> Is there a hole in this claim?