ANN: obfuscate 0.2.2
steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au
Sun Apr 11 03:17:26 CEST 2010
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:34:17 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> writes:
>> DISCLAIMER: obfuscate is not cryptographically strong, and should not
>> be used where high security is required.
> Certainly no one should never use obfuscate's rot13 function for high
> security. Use at least double-rot13 instead, or maybe even quadruple
> rot13 ;-).
Ha ha, that's funny! I've never heard that one before! *wink*
I may add a quadruple-rot13 to the next release. Would you like credit?
obfuscate does include ciphers which, prior to the invention of the
computer, were good enough for real world use. E.g. the Playfair cipher
was still in use for field communications in World War 2, e.g:
and of course Vigenere is uncrackable if you provide it with a
cryptographically random key as long as the message which you use only
once. (In that case, it is a one-time-pad.)
More information about the Python-list