Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!gatech!mcnc!duke!srt
From: srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Another question
Message-ID: <10933@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 15 Jan 88 17:20:21 GMT
References: <8801150155.AA11615@decwrl.dec.com>
Reply-To: srt@duke.UUCP (Stephen R. Tate)
Organization: Duke University, Durham NC
Lines: 17

In article <8801150155.AA11615@decwrl.dec.com> kruger@16bits.dec.com (Hart for CCCP chief in '88) writes:
>I am currently looking into a public key encryption system for a bulletin board
>network program. However, RSA is fairly CPU intensive, and the need for the
>ultimate security is not great. It would be sufficient to merely be 'difficult'
>for an average type. But the system really MUST be public key because any method
>of passing keys makes the whole thing useless.

Why no just use shorter keys in an RSA scheme?  You've got a good trade-off
here between complexity of encryption and security -- if you want something
simpler and can live with less security, just make the keys shorter.  Nothing
says you have to use 100 digit keys.....

-- 
Steve Tate			UUCP: ..!{ihnp4,decvax}!duke!srt
				CSNET: srt@duke
				ARPA:  srt@cs.duke.edu
"There ain't nothin' in the world that a T-Bone Shuffle won't cure."