On 15/10/14 23:45, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > There *are* simply solutions to this rather trivial and common > problem.
I don't consider that a trivial problem, actually. I can think of many threat models where it is entirely non-trivial. You never mentioned a threat model. > OK. Swell. Ignoring, for the moment, the personal condescension > implicit in your comments There was no condescension in there; none at all whatsoever. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to write such an implementation. And I'm not condescending towards myself. I'm sorry that you felt it that way; if I had ever considered that you might find it condescending I would have included a disclaimer. However, I thought the following two quotes together already made it clear that it was no condescension. >From the release announcement: > Thorough understanding of applied cryptography is required for proper > use Libgcrypt. >From your own words: > [...] even though I am by no means knowledgable about cryptography > generally. (Most of what little I do know has been garnered from > with Wikipedia.) > Was that promise just inserted into the manual as some sort of cruel > joke, you know, to get naive people like me to waste a lot of time > looking for examples that aren't even actually in there? <Sigh>. If this is how you wish this conversation to go, I don't feel like helping. When we start out assuming bad faith on everything that in some completely unlikely scenario could possibly be bad faith, then I am done with this. You have my apologies for writing something you misread as condescending. Other than that, I'm done here. Good luck, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter> _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
