Content deleted Content added
m Article Class improved from stub using AWB |
No edit summary |
||
Line 52:
The line, "It is possible to encrypt without using any fixed algorithm. Non-Algorithmic Encryption[5]" contains a link to a page which offers products for sale. The phrase "Non-Algorithmic Encryption" seems to me to be a contradiction in terms and may possibly be a trademark belonging to a Swedish company called TRNG98. [[User:JLKrause|JLKrause]] ([[User talk:JLKrause|talk]]) 03:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
: Moreover, there is a lack of secondary sources [[WP:OR]]. Typically, encryption schemes on Wikipedia should have been published (i.e. peer reviewed) and analyzed. 05:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:1205:C6BB:6880:A0CE:5BE0:C90E:6766|2A02:1205:C6BB:6880:A0CE:5BE0:C90E:6766]] ([[User talk:2A02:1205:C6BB:6880:A0CE:5BE0:C90E:6766|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== removed "well-respected" from "Implementations" ==
RC4 is mentioned and is not "well-respected" nowadays! has been known to be insecure for _years_. source: ivan ristic, bulletproof SSL, feistyduck.com.
from a historic point of view RC4 deserves respect for sure - but any statement to that regard would have to be specific enough not to lead readers to think RC4 is still considered secure as of today.
| |||