Talk:Symmetric-key algorithm

Re: Statement "The symmetric-key algorithms can't be used for authentication or non-repudiation purposes." Isn't authentication possible, using a KDC?

Re: authentication is possible, but you need a trusted channel first.. which involves asymmetric cryto... Sounds weird anyway.

Quite a few sections of this document are written in broken or poor English. Someone needs to fix this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.71.38 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word usage

In your section marked "speed" I find the following sentence:

"In practice, this means that a quality asymmetric key algorithm is hundreds or thousands of times slower than a quality symmetric key algorithm."

The word "quality" unmodified has no meaning in this sentence. It is like saying "the plane was flying at an altitude." If it is off the ground, it has altitude, but, unmodified, gives no information on how far off the ground. High altitude? Low altitude? I believe you are trying to say "high quality." If this is so, may I suggest saying so? Kjdamrau 06:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Ken Damrau[reply]

Content yet lacking depth

Seems as much on asymmetric as on symmetric encryption.

Why not move description of other concepts to the respective article or - if comparing - to a higher level, eg to an article on crypto systems in general.

And, sorry to say this, substance is yet lacking.

Whoever has a few serious math books at hand and an understanding of the taxonomy ... thanks. 14 Sep 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.17.179 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the proposed merger with symmetric key management

Oppose merger Key management is a very large, hard to adequately cover, easy to get wrong (both in execution and in description), topic. It simply can't be adequately handled as a sub section of this article, and to try will result in lowered quality of this article, which already needs improvement. So, for both content and for reasons of WP presentation of that content, this merger is not a good idea. ww (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger This page is basically an overview over different topics on symmetric key algorithms. To keep this overview readable it is a good idea to keep the details on each of these topics in separate articles. 62.203.28.106 (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivially Related? Wording?

Is the phrase a term of art or a conventional term? If not, it seems to me it should be changed to "closely related". Trivialy related would seem to me to suggest the relationship exists but it is small or insignificant, trivial. This seems exactly opposite to what the reality is- the relationship is identical or the keys differ by a small relatively insignificant transformation, a trivial difference.

Thoughts? --Δζ (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "trivial" is used in mathematics to express that something is easy (see Trivial_(mathematics)).85.3.72.132 (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction weak

The first two sentences could easily be merged/joined, as they convey similar information.