Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bwdls61.bnr.ca!bwdls58!mlord
From: mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: File protection in MS-DOS
Message-ID: <5034@bwdls58.UUCP>
Date: 4 Dec 90 17:32:48 GMT
References: <3920@male.EBay.Sun.COM> <51060001@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com>
Sender: mlord@bwdls58.UUCP
Reply-To: mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 17

In article <51060001@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> swh@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Steve Harrold) writes:
<>>> To repeat: ANY SECURITY SYSTEM WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A PHYSICAL DEVICE
<>>> UNDER PHYSICAL PROTECTION CANNOT PROVIDE REAL SECURITY. 
<>>> --- Tom Roberts
<----------
<How would you classify schemes such as DES or the public key encryption
<schemes.  Surely, given enough time they can be decoded, and by such time
<it is assumed that the data is no longer useful.  But, given enough time
<one can also remove the physical device without damage to the data.

Err.. my understanding of the current DES is that it can actually be "broken"
very quickly on existing FAST computers, owned by say, the US gvt.
-- 
 ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________
| ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) |
| MLORD@BNR.CA   Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only.   |
|________________________________|________________________|