Re: ARC4 algorithm

> I made it very clear in my original email that I didn't want this kind of

Then do not make rude and offensive statements in public forums. The first few outputs of ARC4 posess a small, but detectible bias towards certain key bits. There is a well-known workaround for this issue (discarding the first n bytes of output). There are attacks based on certain modes of operation (the boradcast attack comes to mind), where repeatedly encrypting different pieces of data with the same (initial) portion of the keystream leads to an attack.

This does not translate to "multiply and badly broken"

What you have offered is a thinly veiled advertisement for your own personal cryptosystem/PRNG, with absolutely no facts to back up any of your claims. "too big to mesure" "no weak keys" "zero information leagage" "considerably different to and more complicated than" are, quite frankly, offensive justifications for the superiority of your algorithm.

> You obviously can't read.

In fact, I have read a great deal on this subject. Certainly all of the amorphous "Documents available from the Internet" that you "cite," and likely many more. My classification of your statement as a "crock of shit" was empirical, not editorial.

-kj Received on Wed Mar 12 14:28:27 2003