Unusual behavior with rotor

[Paul Rubin]

Jeff Sykes <jeff at cowz.com> writes:
> Thanks, I'll take a look.
> 
> Rotor should be good enough for my purposes, but I'll bite on your other
> comment. Does it have a known security hole?

You mean does rotor have a known security hole?  There's an obvious
one, which is if you encrypt the same plaintext twice, you get the
same ciphertext.  There's also the matter of the algorithm itself.
It's one of a class of algorithms that are vulnerable to well-known
cryptanalysis methods, though I don't know of anyone who's bothered
constructing a break for this particular instance of such an
algorithm.

In general, if you think someone with any sophistication might
actually try to attack your encrypted data, you should not use the
rotor module.