Talk:Type 1 encryption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I temporarily removed "However, in 2003 the U.S. Government certified the widely available AES algorithm for Type 1 encryption when used in an NSA approved device." — I think AES is classed as Type 3; I've never heard it classed as Type 1, even though it can be used for the encryption of TOP SECRET material with the longer key lengths. Could you cite some sources for this? Thanks. — Matt 22:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think some clarification is needed. The Type 1 product/Type 3 product/Type 3 encryption/Type 4 encryption/ breakdown is (or was) NSA doctrine. As I understand it, NSA does not use the term "Type 1 encryption" because they want to emphasize that classified info can only be handled by a complete system that has NSA approval. The encryption algorithm is only part of the story (and not a very big part these days). NSA has since turfed unclassified encryption systems to NIST. I very much like the new table, but I would proposed that it be labled "List of NSA encryption algorithms," or some such and "Type 1" product be restored with a pointer to the list. Type 2 NSA algorithms could be added, with a note. I'd also like to see even rough dates. --agr 03:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right that the list of algorithms should probably be moved to its own page and that we should empathize systems over algorithms. However, "Type 1 algorithm" and "Type 1 encryption" are actually in pretty common usage. Also, the original categorization from FED-STD-whatever was product/product/algorithm/algorithm, which is random and inconsistent, particularly considering that Type 3 products being whole systems is the entire point of FIPS 140... I'll dig up what I have on dates, etc. User:inkling

Doesn't NSA use Roman numerals (I/II/III)?

[edit] No References

Since the article has been tagged since 02/2008 as having no references (for obvious lack of unclassified sources), I'm going to remove the unsourced info. Mmernex (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)