<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>ARC4 is fast.</DIV>
<DIV>ARC4 is easy to implement.</DIV>
<DIV>ARC4 is beautiful (my personal Mona Lisa of cryptography)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some years ago this "arguments" appeared to me as "sufficient" to bank on
it during a development of a secure protocol, which is intending to beat
the SSL performance (in a concluded VPN).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As you know some "uncultured and barefaced" cryptoanalysts have painted a
fat nipple directly is the face of my Mona Lisa. It could be adopted that this
people will terminate to do their sacrileges. Futheron this is not
desirable.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But what should one do if a development depends on an algorithm. The only
way around this edge is to bank on a library that offers equivalent
compensation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>By the way: In my point of view a block cipher that is running in CFB, OFB
or CTR mode could never be an equivalent compensation for a stream cipher (if
you want speed). Dwayne's statement that stream ciphers are still in an
"experimental" state sounds in my (european) ears like a simple</DIV>
<DIV>misapprehension. For some reasons the Europeans are never leaving the
"experimental" state of exactly nothing. Well, that's a part of our weakness but
even a part of our power.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Stefan</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>