Cryptography-Digest Digest #255, Volume #10 Fri, 17 Sep 99 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it? (Tom)
Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it? (Tom St Denis)
Re: What is XOR? (Tom St Denis)
Re: Cyrpto-sell-o (Tom St Denis)
Re: Example of a one way function? (Tom St Denis)
Re: SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY/Questions Please (Tom St Denis)
Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: some information theory (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
3des? (Tom St Denis)
Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it? (Jeff Williams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:36:59 GMT
In article <7rsber$8r6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner) wrote:
>In article <7rs7s8$11u8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> They check to see how wrote it. If it is some one they don't know
>> they say it is weak and go on since they are afraid of there own
>> shadows.
>
>Do you really believe this?
>
>If you truly believe that your ideas are being ignored not because of
>lack of technical merit but rather because of your name, there's an
>easy way to prove it: submit a paper anonymously (or under a fake name)
>to some respected crypto conference. If it gets accepted, you can
>boast all you like about how you fooled all those evil cryptographers...
Do you really belive this?
Unless the fake name I used was yours and the email addresses and
wirtting skills matched yours. It would not be accepted. Also I do
belive you understand my method. I can't belive that my C code is
really beyond your mental ability. If it is beyond your ability to understand
then stay a Poster Boy outside the NSA because you would not be good
enough to get in.
>
>Or, post to sci.crypt via an anonymous remailer. (See www.replay.com.)
>If people react differently to your post, you can claim glorious victory.
Give my a break my writting skills are like fingerprints the fist time
I posted when YFN started to die people knew it was me. But they thought
I was hidding since the ID changed. But you may not have noticed. There
are sharp people out there.
>
>In the meantime, I fear that these types of remarks only diminish the
>chances that anyone will take you seriously.
Will fear not. I am sure you are counting on people to not take
my code seriously since if they do. They will abandon the weak
crypto of the AES.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:53:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric
Lee Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Lee
> Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Whoops, I forgot part (d), which is when you pay the "real" experts real
>> >money to cryptanalyse your product prior to its release. Depending upon
>> >the importance of the crypto component of your product, that may be
>> >money well spent (or maybe not). I know that Microsoft probably wishes
>> >today that they'd hired Bruce to cryptanalyse MSCHAP-80 prior to its
>> >release...
>>
>> How do you know that didn't hire him.
>
>Because he and Mudge tore MSCHAP-80 to shreds. See
>http://www.counterpane.com for details. Basically, he blasted Microsoft
>as being a bunch of amateurs, and insinuated that no real expert would
>have put out such a piece of crud.
May be he set them up and consulted under another name. Doing a bad
job so that his other identity could take the credit for finding the weakness.
Also even when in school lots of teachers take credit for what there pupils
or others do. How can one be sure Mr B.S. actully balsted them. IT is possible
his handlers attacked it for him so that his Spin Doctioring factor could go
up. Things are not always what they seem to be in the world of crypto thats
what makes it so fun.
>
>That doesn't sound like he consulted for them!
>
>> particular person was. But I doubt if the so called experts would really want
>> that. Becasue its better to have a good line of BS than to really know
>> anything.
>
>That, alas, IS a problem. A good line of bull is enough to snow many of
>the pointy-haired bosses out there. But there's a way to tell whether
>someone is relatively reputable or not. a) Does he have a lot of mention
>in the literature? b) Does he have references willing to stand up and
>say he did good work? c) Do your own in-house experts trust him once
>they've quizzed him? etc. etc. etc. It's just like hiring an employee,
>and like when hiring an employee, too many people fall for a good line
>of bullshit, but if you're willing to work at it, you can tell the bull
>from the beef.
Having worked for the government over the years I have meet all types
even those with excellent credentuals that knew almost nothing. I use
to belive what you said above but not any more. Like inertia once some
one with a good load of bull starts moving. It is hard for the truth to slow
them down and they easily get more credentials that you think mean so
much.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom)
Subject: Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:04:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:40:38 -0700, Sundial
Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roger Fleming wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>C'mon, friend, let's be loosy-goosy here for a little while. Let's turn
>the light upon exactly what those experts know that we don't. Or, to
>put it another way, let's figure out what exactly it is that makes Bruce
>Scheirer's opinion better than anyone else's besides the fact that he's
>written a book. ;-) ;-) :-) <-!!!
>
>Beneath my cavalier approach to this is a serious, hard question: what,
>exactly, IS it that makes an expert an expert? And therefore, what IS
>it that makes a cipher insecure when it appears, to a designer or to a
>common layman, to be perfectly adequate? Why exactly IS it that one
>carbon-based computer known as Bruce Scheirer, or John Savard, or
>(whomever) has some element of knowledge that no one else has?
You don't have to know anything about the subject
to answer this one. What makes anyone an expert
at any technical field is a combination of
practical experience and study of theory and
history. This leads to an understanding of the
subject complete enough to be intuitive about it.
There isn't any magic bit of information that can
substitute for the experience, nor is there a way
to quantify it.
You can't quantify something until you can define
the parameters. The quantification won't hold
beyond the knowledge level is was designed for.
To expect it to do so would be to a form of
extrapolation, at best.
Sure, you could quantify part of it. "Is key size
greater than plaintext size?" would be an example,
but that's only going to screen out some of the
more obviously lousy systems.
Experience is a great thing. An example is that
an engineer can often walk into a building, look
around, and say something like "this thing is way
over-designed." And it'll be true! And it'll
take quite a bit of work to prove, and it isn't
something that you can quickly tell somebody else.
>If we knew, then we could build provably better ciphers. We could
>evaluate them whether or not the "experts" had the time or the research
>or the research-papers to do it. We could "give them nothing to
>evaluate."
>
>It seems to me that we ought to be able to subject a cipher to an
>objective test. We should not be in the situation of having to evaluate
>-any- expert's judgement because that is no more (and no less) than a
>human judgement and therefore it is flawed. We could be victims of
>false-confidence just as easily as having our hopes of security secured,
>now aren't we??
That's why three things are true of this field.
First is that one guy's opinion is just that - one
guy's opinion. Second is that breaking a code
could just as easily come from an outsider, that
comes from a different background as an expert.
Third is that you never know how long a particular
code is going to be useful. All of this leads to
the general belief that the best code is one that
has been published and studied for a little while.
Now, I have to believe that if the above weren't
true, someone would be able to convince the
experts otherwise, which doesn't seem to have
happened.
As to "human judgement", well, that's another way
of saying common sense. And in any engineering
field, common sense is a powerful thing. It's
what keeps you from doing something stupid just
because a computer says it's correct. :)
All of the theories, and things we hold to be
"facts", computers, diagrams, charts - all of it
is created from human judgement. All of it needs
to be applied with common sense, meaning a basic
understanding of the principles involved, meaning
some experience with the subject at hand. They're
all tools, no more, no less.
Who is an expert and who not? It's not perfect,
but eventually the people that generally know what
they're talking about are recognized for it, and
those that just make noise are recognized for
that. At least that's the way it works most of
the time within a field, eventually. Some ideas
take longer to take hold. Some people survive a
long time just by spouting dogma. But technical
progress slowly grinds forward...
>
>The -only- way we can know these things for sure is when they are
>measurable and objective. And this world of mystery and "experts" is
>anything but that, now isn't it?
>
>:-/
As soon as you make it "measurable and objective",
you'll quickly be able to create a "perfect" code
based on a computer optimization. And it'll be a
great code, until somebody finds the loophole in
the objective criteria.
All of the objective criteria I know of are
simplified and approximated representations of
more complex ideas. We use this objective
criteria to "prove" otherwise simple things back
and forth with people that lack the intuition,
experience, or intelligence to just know what's
going on, or to get our arms around a subject that
is otherwise to complex for anyone to understand.
Knowing something "for sure" reminds me of a
favorite Yogi Berra quote:
"Know anything? I don't even SUSPECT anything."
======
Just random thoughts
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:18:38 GMT
In article <7rsber$8r6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner) wrote:
> In article <7rs7s8$11u8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They check to see how wrote it. If it is some one they don't know
> > they say it is weak and go on since they are afraid of there own
> > shadows.
>
> Do you really believe this?
>
> If you truly believe that your ideas are being ignored not because of
> lack of technical merit but rather because of your name, there's an
> easy way to prove it: submit a paper anonymously (or under a fake name)
> to some respected crypto conference. If it gets accepted, you can
> boast all you like about how you fooled all those evil cryptographers...
>
> Or, post to sci.crypt via an anonymous remailer. (See www.replay.com.)
> If people react differently to your post, you can claim glorious victory.
>
> In the meantime, I fear that these types of remarks only diminish the
> chances that anyone will take you seriously.
Heck if he submitted a mechanical/technical paper under his real name I would
read it. I have read about 300 crypto papers (in about 6 months) and I am
not biased. I will however NOT READ OBFUSCATED SOURCE CODE.
Basically.... Dave Scott... DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Tom
--
damn windows... new PGP key!!!
http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
(this time I have a backup of the secret key)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is XOR?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:22:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
SkoZombie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
>
> I agree 100%, but just to make things a little clearer, here's a futher
> example.
>
> Say you have two binary numbers, A = 01100101 and B = 10101001. To XOR
> them together, you simply do it quite literally, bit by bit. So ... A
> XOR B
>
> 01100101 XOR
> 10101001
> --------
> 11001100 [Using table above]
>
> As this is a binary operation, it normally quite quick.
>
> And, If i am not mistaken, the XOR symbol is a plus in a circle ... like
> (+) if you close the circle :)
>
> Hope it helps!
A bit simpler the result of a xor b is the difference. IF they are the same
the output is zero, otherwise it's one.
BTW, the OR symbol is an upsidedown v and the AND is a v (or is that
backwards they always confused me... I like the | and & symbols )
Tom
--
damn windows... new PGP key!!!
http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
(this time I have a backup of the secret key)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cyrpto-sell-o
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:04:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am new to the encryption scene but I was curious. If I were to come
> up with a new mathamatical encryption method, how would I go about
> selling this? Should I contact the NSA? Just curious.
> GazanGA
>
First off remember that the NSA is out to get you. They watch you undress
at night as well... muhahahahahaha
Anyways, actual symmetric ciphers do not sell since they are about a dime a
dozen. I could come up with 10 blowfish variants in about an hour.
If you have a cipher in mind remember that it has to be better then the
current ciphers out there. If you have some thoery publish it!
Geez... why is it always about the money?
Tom
--
damn windows... new PGP key!!!
http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
(this time I have a backup of the secret key)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Example of a one way function?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:26:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Anton Stiglic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> f(x) = x^2 mod N, where N = pq and p, q are primes.
>
> is beleived to be one way.
>
> It is often used in crypto.
Doest N have to be a blum integer (making it a quadratic residue?) you will
get four roots for this and one of them at random is correct. Look up Rabin
if you have applied crypto.,
Tom
--
damn windows... new PGP key!!!
http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
(this time I have a backup of the secret key)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY/Questions Please
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:30:19 GMT
In article <7rsa4h$um8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> In article <7rrhp6$rv8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >In article <7rqksg$3664$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY) wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> >tunafish wrote:
> >> >> What they seem to have done is deliberaltely weeken these algorithms
> >> >> by asking those who submitted to make certain modification to the
> >> >> code...
> >> >
> >> >Oh, good grief! That's the old conspiracy theory resurrected
> >> >from the early DES debate. What EVIDENCE do you have that this
> >> >has occurred?
> >> I don't even have evidence that the guy Mr L.H. the FBI guy with the
> >> license to kill that is so certifed good at killing mothers holding babies
> >> was also in Waco. But I have read articles that state he was there since
> >> he did so good at Ruby Ridge. Of course the evidence if there was any
> >> was destroyed unless the texas rangers can provide a link. But I think
> >> he is the kind of guy the FBI uses when it has to kill woman and
> >> children. But then again maybe I am all wrong. Don't take me wrong
> >> I think V.H. aka D.K was a very very bad sick person.
> >> If you are very well read you should be smart enough to realize there
> >> was much discussion about how fast custom circuits could be made in
> >> the days of DES. Just like most people have no idea how old the SR-171
> >> is. Most people have no idea how good the government with its vast supply
> >> of money is at building custom equipment in the old days. It is a fact
> >> IBM was going to go with a 64 bit system but the NSA stepped in to
> >> make it a 56 bit sytem. Why? Because a 56 bit system is can be
> >> brute force searched 256 times faster. I think the old book "The Puzzle
> >> Palace" covers this somewhat if your interested.
> >
> >Funny according to Applied Crypto (the book you hate for no reason) The
> >original NBS submission from IBM had a 112 bit key ...
> >
> >Funny that the new AES is 128+ bits... funny stuff.
> >
> >Tom
> Tom a lot has changed since the time DES was invented. I guess those
> billions of dollars they spend every year are starting to pay off.
Well I hope so. I have been waiting for my pogey check for 17 years now :)
Tom
--
damn windows... new PGP key!!!
http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
(this time I have a backup of the secret key)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:39:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:40:38 -0700, Sundial
>Services <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Roger Fleming wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>
>>C'mon, friend, let's be loosy-goosy here for a little while. Let's turn
>>the light upon exactly what those experts know that we don't. Or, to
>>put it another way, let's figure out what exactly it is that makes Bruce
>>Scheirer's opinion better than anyone else's besides the fact that he's
>>written a book. ;-) ;-) :-) <-!!!
>>
>>Beneath my cavalier approach to this is a serious, hard question: what,
>>exactly, IS it that makes an expert an expert? And therefore, what IS
>>it that makes a cipher insecure when it appears, to a designer or to a
>>common layman, to be perfectly adequate? Why exactly IS it that one
>>carbon-based computer known as Bruce Scheirer, or John Savard, or
>>(whomever) has some element of knowledge that no one else has?
>
>You don't have to know anything about the subject
>to answer this one. What makes anyone an expert
>at any technical field is a combination of
>practical experience and study of theory and
>history. This leads to an understanding of the
>subject complete enough to be intuitive about it.
>There isn't any magic bit of information that can
>substitute for the experience, nor is there a way
>to quantify it.
Unfortunately in todays worlds more and more
experts are those with ties and old money. Good
PR goes a long ways
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: some information theory
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:33:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anti-Spam
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Tyler wrote:
>( cut a lot of the nested commentary on the commentary on the original
>comments.... s
>>
>> One definition of what constitutes "randomness" mentions that random
>> data is generally incompressible. Conversely, incompressible data should
>> look random - if there's any order in it it will be fodder for a better
>> algorithm that identifies that order and squeezes it out.
>> --
>
>I follow your statements about compressed data/files "looking" like
>random binary.
>You're assertion is that compressed data/files may pass some of the
>statistical tests for random binary strings ( the five tests from the
>Handbook of Applied Cryptology, for example).
>
>Random data is generally not compressable. OK. BUT, the converse is not
>a true statement - "compressed data should look random." ( If A implies
>B, then NOT B implies NOT A.)
>That is, if random data is not compressable, then compressible data is
>not random data. That is the "flip" side of random data not being
>compressible.
I am a great beliver in logic and am well aware of the fact then
If A then B is a ture statement. The contrapositve If not B then not A
is true by defination.
Yet the statements
1) If "file is random" then "the file is not compressable"
implies
2) If "the file is compressable" then "the file is not random" would also be
true. But the first statement is not really complete.
It is like the old logic puzzle find the first number that is not unique. But
it in a set. The number is first in the resultant set so it can't be unique.
It goes like this first assume that some files are random and some are
not random. Put the first non random in a set. Than I write a compression
program that write out the index number of that file as its compressed
representation. Since I am only compressing random files and using the
index numbers they are really being compressed. But by virture of the
compression they are not random.
What I hope this shows is that the wording of your "if then" is not really
valid becasue of the strange nature of the word random. You should have
said is.
1) given: a compresion method "X" a file "A" is random if when compressed
by method "X" it gets longer. Know you can say
2) give: using the word compressed to mean that it does not get longer. Since
many time it really only means that the file is transformed with the hope that
if it belongs to a certain class of files it will get shorter.
IF "a file is random" then "the file can not be compressed"
IF "a file is compressed" then "the file is not random"
know it makes sense.
>
>An example - use a static huffman code to represent the symbols in the
>original data/file per the frequencies of occurance of the symbols.
>This compression will produce a maximal entropy encoding of the
>symbols. There is, however, much order in the compressed data/file.
>String patterns for each of the symbols repeat throughout the compressed
>data/file. The original order and frequency of the symbols is preserved
>in the compressed file/data. The number of 1s and 0s in the data/file
>may equal, but the probablilites of particular strings of 1s and 0s will
>be far larger than expected for a true random bit source generating a
>string of bits. ( Static huffman coding is eqivalent to a substitution
>cipher on the original data/file where each symbols code in the original
>data/file is replaced with an encoding in the compressed data/file such
>that the compression encoding for the symbols is maximal entropy. The
>"key" for this substitution is the frequency of symbols as the occur as
>represented in the original uncompressed data/file.)
>
>I agree that adaptive huffman coding of data/files will make the
>compressed data/file output look more random ( and maybe pass some
>statistical tests for randomness with better confidence levels than
>static huffman coding would do) but still, the data will not complete
>pass all tests. It's better.
again it can pass all tests it just depends heavily on what you condsider
as a random test file. Don't for get I can take whatever files that you
choose to be random that you get to pass your tests. Then uncompress
those file with a "one to one" compression/decompression program.
These uncompressed files would most likely fail some of your tests.
But when you compress them they would pass. SInce they passed
as radom files before.
>
>I am still pondering the two-pass adaptive huffman coding scheme much
>mentioned here in this group. ( That's another thread someday - I'm
>chasing down the notion of an eqivalence between aperiodic (or
>quasi-perodic) polyalphabetic ciphers and adaptive huffman codes - but
>only as I get some spare time now and again. )
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take a look at my compression PAGES I show a 2 pass adapative
huffman scheme where the second pass the resultant file can be a
different length for each of the two possible result files. It just depends
on which huffman values where used on the table. In one I make the
1/0 assignements a function of weights there is plenty of room to
modify to the custom compression porgram of your choice.
Http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
and follow the links to other compression pages of mine
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS
------------------------------
From: Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 3des?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:42:32 GMT
Ok here's an interesting question?
If using DES with 768-bit keys provides no better resistance (and no less) to
iterative attacks but allows a key strength of 384 bits (because of the mitm
attack), why not use that instead of 3des?
[ btw what is the exact resistance to iterative attacks I don't have my
applied crypto handy now ... I remember it was something like 2^60 for diff
and 2^47 for linear? Or am I full of beans?]
Tom
--
damn windows... new PGP key!!!
http://people.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp
(this time I have a backup of the secret key)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Williams)
Subject: Re: Okay "experts," how do you do it?
Date: 17 Sep 1999 12:41:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> Tom St Denis wrote:
|> > I think you should try designing a system before you break one. If
|> > you design one you can get a field for what/how you are trying to
|> > protect the information.
|>
|> That is the opposite of the invariable advice given by the true
|> experts. It is true that you need to learn *cryptography*, i.e.
|> the techniques of encryption, before *cryptanalysis*, but that's
|> not the same as saying that you should try to *be* a codemaker
|> before becoming a codebreaker. The term "analysis" is part of
|> "cryptanalysis" for a good reason; issues of vulnerability are
|> matters for analysis, not construction.
Agreed. On the other hand, newbies to cryptography (and computer
security in general), frequently tend to hold an overly simplistic
view of the field. Having a newbie attempt to design a secure
*system* early on as a learning exercise and then having an expert
show him/her the gaping holes in the system they just designed might
serve as a serious wake-up call. I know that books and instructors
can tell you that a system is more than just a good algorithm, but
designing a system and having the gaps exposed might be more
instructive.
FWIW.
--
Jeff Williams - Alcatel USA.
Did you know that there is enough sand
in North Africa to cover the entire
Sahara desert?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
