I note that there is nothing about efficiency in that charter. >But is it secure? No reasonable person would think otherwise. It has withstood scrutiny for 20

I note that there is nothing about efficiency in that charter. >But is it secure? No reasonable person would think otherwise. It has withstood scrutiny for 20+ years. >We don't really know because there's no security proof. Why would we need a separate proof? The principles behind this sort of construct are pretty well known by now. See: * https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~mihir/papers/enc-red.pdf https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~mihir/papers/enc-red.pdf >It also uses SHA-1, which might be fine or might not be. Yeah it is for this sort of approach. That is not in question. At any rate, no one has any obligation to prove that OCFB-MDC is secure. It falls to those who that it be superseded to prove that there is something wrong with it. You (or I) can't legitimately suggest that something be replaced simply because you (or I) don't understand how it works. >For you as a user, it should be invisible. A significant portion of the article explains why it is not invisible, as in problems being caused right now with a list of examples and everything.