James A. Donald:
> > Since cryptography these days is routine and 
> > uncontroversial, there is no longer any strong 
> > reason for the cypherpunks list to continue to 
> > exist.

John Kelsey
> The ratio of political wanking to technical posts and 
> of talkers to thinkers to coders needs to be right for 
> the list to be interesting.

These days, if one is seriously working on overthrowing 
the state by advancing to crypto anarchy (meaning both 
anarchy that is hidden, in that large scale cooperation 
procedes without the state taxing it, regulating it, 
supervising it, and licensing it, and anarchy that 
relies on cryptography to resist the state) it is not 
necessary or advisable to announce what one is up to.

For example, Kerberos needs to be replaced by a more 
secure protocol.  No need to add "And I am concerned 
about this because I am an anarchist"  And so one
discusses it on another list.

(Kerberos tickets are small meaningful encrypted packets 
of information, when they should be random numbers. 
Being small, they can be dictionary attacked.) 

         James A. Donald

Reply via email to