On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:35:21PM -0800, Ryan Carboni wrote: > What if the world isn't dysfunctional? What if it is so by design? What if > all nonfeasance and misfeasance is really malfeasance? Isn't the difference > between a democracy and a dictatorship a matter of active consent vs > passive consent? If five hundred random people were stuffed into Congress > and made the laws, would they run the country in the same way? Well, I > suppose there are true heroes, like Litt who said that DES couldn't be > cracked, and Clapper, who said a "truth" to Wyden who really should have > known better. > > > Anything exceptional that I pointed out is a product of pure deduction, a > quality few possess, that the school systems intentionally attempt to > deprive their students of. > > > To perhaps parody Cloudflare's complaint about ARX-512 making ChaCha20 > nearly as fast as AES-NI, clearly Linux's /dev/random/ is not fully > understood and should be avoided. For the entropy estimate only counts the > entropy of individual events, but not the total combinatorial complexity. > Since operating systems have no real time guarantee, and all entropy is a > product of unobserved events, the order in which events occur certainly > adds entropy. Given that combinatorial complexity is not factored in > entropy estimates, the entropy estimate should be considered flawed.
So in respect of cryptographic utility, entropy ≡ combinatorial complexity Sounds like howash frankly... > In fact, this combinatorial complexity significantly impacts one's ability > to manipulate the output of the generator without knowing the full state, > and it might be dangerous for /dev/random/ to treat any source of entropy > as 8 bits per byte. > > Perhaps only those capable of communicating in pure deduction can only be > trusted by others capable of communicating in the same fashion. > > Of course the ability to deduce has long been regarded as the prerequisite > to investigate or understand anything, and is the foundation of all logic > and reason. > > > In the end though, I must repeat someone else's observation, that Google > could flip a switch, and 7% of all internet traffic will use a new protocol > they devised. I would prefer, in the following order, MitM-vulnerable > cryptography, backdoored forward secret ciphers, and then key length > restrictions. Not... an impossible to design product, with the source code > given to any government (Kaspersky gives their code to the US, IBM gives > their source code to Russia)... > Hmm. > > You can make any software licensed under the GPL if you demand it I suppose > (yet it doesn't stop bundling anything with proprietary code). So much > happening right in front of your eyes, I doubt if you object to any of it, > you can possibly stop it. > > P.S. To expound upon my previous statement that what one says only has to > be facially true, the argument barely has to justify itself, even using > weak evidence the audience may very well accept what you say as truth. This > makes anything you learn about debating to be a cruel waste of time.
