Re: Agree with PRZs MDC suggestion

On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 01:26:05AM -0400, uri wrote:

> > > [...] we could require that MDC can *not* be turned off.
> > What does that mean for existing implementations?
> [...] let bygones be bygones.
Then why not dump plain ElGamal encryption in favor of DHAES (see
http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/users/mihir/papers/pke.html), DHAES being used
on whole messages, not just session keys?  (DHAES is basically ElGamal
done right plus an MDC, and there are security proofs for it.)