From: WTShaw on
On May 24, 3:13 pm, "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chi...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> "adacrypt" <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5527ba0e-8ba4-46d2-b4aa-42b7706da0ad(a)d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >The question begs, “does the industry need anything more than one good
> >cipher?”.  I say no but rather than close the door on any area of
> >human endeavour I say that if it ever comes to that happy state of
> >having a choice of ciphers (written by any reader) then the yardstick
> >has to be total security as a foregone conclusion firstly, followed by
> >efficiency next and then elegance.
......
>
> Many or most standard encryption algorithms simply won't run on inexpensive
> microcontrollers.
>
> Datesfat

There are many more possible alternatives than anyone can imagine,
which is good.

I am reminded of an early sonic remove system and one application for
just advancing channels on a TV. Just press it so many times to go
through the list including an off position, which was not really
that. As a kid I learned that I could send the signal, supersonic, by
flexing a slinky. The trick was revealed after a trip to the repair
shop to see why the set seemed to sometimes go bananas. My dad was
amused.

What is insufficient is not adequate in a given range of uses. But,
why would you put a steel door on a tent, or a curtain to protect a
bank vault? O, where is James Garner when we need him?
From: Gordon Burditt on
>> Sometimes the security of ROT 13 *is* overkill.
>
>I prefer XOR 0x69 on every byte. Gives me warm fuzzies.

That makes it unsuitable for one of ROT13's major uses: lightly
encrypting offensive jokes and spoilers posted on USENET. ROT13
transforms text to text. XOR 0x69 will transform some letters into
ASCII control characters which will not necessarily be preserved
through NNTP, and which may put a terminal into strange modes. In
particular, 'i' gets transformed into an ASCII NUL, which is likely
to get messed up by C programs handling the article.