Ertugrul =?UTF-8?B?U8O2eWxlbWV6?= <es@ertes.de> wrote in news:fpu314$9u4$02
$1@news.t-online.com:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:13:56 +0100 (CET)
> Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>
>> The mathematics behind that is undeniable. Modern strong encryption is
>> virtually uncrackable. Period. If any weaknesses exist they're going
>> to be in the implementation, not the crypto itself.
>
> Unfortunately this is very inaccurate. The mathematics are deniable,
> because there are no security proofs. There is strong evidence towards
> good security, but nothing is proven here. So currently, we can only
> assume security, not take it for granted.

I agree, but the evidence is very strong for some versions algorithms, no?

And, until someone does factorisation, cracking an encrypted message is
almost always going to rely on the implementation of the algorithm in
software, the deployment of software on the machine, human weaknesses in
picking good passwords etc.