Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 02:32:55 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <jeroen@vangelderen.org> Cc: Robert Watson <robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, The Tech-Admin Dude <geniusj@phoenix.unacom.com>, Brian Beaulieu <brian@capital-data.com>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Blowfish/Twofish Message-ID: <23332.925637575@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 May 1999 11:25:09 %2B0200." <372C19F5.625BB2B@vangelderen.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Regardless of what you think about Blowfish, recommending Twofish > is a very, very bad move. The golden rule in crypto is that trust > comes with the age of an algorithm. Twofish is waaaay to young to > be trusted, especially since it's an evolutionary improvement > over Blowfish which you don't like for some reason. Erm, one of the goals of PAM is to support *multiple* encryption methods, so why not do a PAM module for each and let the administrator decide which authentication methods to support in /etc/pam.conf? - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23332.925637575>