Ah, gotcha. I see that now. But, I disagree with you: Kerckhoff (http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0205.html#1) was right; the source (algorithm) should be open, and the _keys_ should be secret. If trust has has anything to do with security, it depends on open, verifiable algorithms. Security that depends on keeping the algorithm secret is less secure.
--- Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think this is a good metaphor at all for > the > > > problem we are discussing. But, for the sake of > this > > > discussion, I'll go along with it for now. > > > > Right on. I don't know how this could be compare > to Closed Source/Open > Source > > development model. I don't even think you could > compare them. > > There seems to be some confusion here. I was > responding directly to (and > right under) -ray's comment that "I still maintain > that source availability > is irrelevant." In 90% of the cases that is true, > but that means that in 10% > of the cases it isn't. So at times source > availability is relevant. > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net ===== John Hebert Official BRLUG Linux Curmudgeon Open Source Ankle Biter __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
