NODE 6b726ef8Re: Cryptanalysis
"E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:30:56 +0800
From: IN%"tcmay@got.net" 9-MAR-1996 12:05:04.70
>There are very good reasons to say little about "conventional
>cryptanalysis": it just doesn't matter much with modern ciphers, such as
>public key systems. Modern ciphers don't fall to conventional attacks based
>on word frequency, pattern analysis, etc.
I realize that this may also be considered an out of date subject,
but what's a good reference for codes as opposed to cyphers (other than
the one reference in the Cyphernomicon which includes "codes" in its title)?
Thanks,
-Allen
NODE 165ffd56Re: Cryptanalysis
Mike Tighe <tighe@spectrum.titan.com>Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:49:54 +0800
>There are very good reasons to say little about "conventional
>cryptanalysis": it just doesn't matter much with modern ciphers, such as
>public key systems. Modern ciphers don't fall to conventional attacks based
>on word frequency, pattern analysis, etc.
I disagree with this, and think that in the next 10-25 years we will find
that most of the systems we are using today were as easily broken as the
systems of yester-year (Enigma, Japanese Codes ,etc).