On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:25 PM, ianG wrote:
Hi Bill,
Actually, Marsh wrote those words, but my mail client decided I really needed
to take credit for them... on the order of 6 or 8 times.
-wps
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
On 29/01/12 13:54 PM, Noon Silk wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM, ianGi...@iang.org wrote:
[...]
It seems to me that you are resting on a sort of philosophical assumption
that pure research is pure, neither good nor bad. If that is the case, the
problem with this assumption is that
Mmm, mail misfire. Apologies. I'd say I'm better than that, but apparently,
I'm not.
-wps
On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Bill Squier wrote:
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote:
major software product that still calls self-signed certificates
snake-oil certificates. Which is upside down,
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote:
major software product that still calls self-signed certificates
snake-oil certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term
itself can be snake-oil recursively.
That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'.
Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+receiver
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote:
major software product that still calls self-signed certificates
snake-oil certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term
itself can be snake-oil recursively.
That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'.
Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+receiver
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote:
major software product that still calls self-signed certificates
snake-oil certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term
itself can be snake-oil recursively.
That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'.
Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+receiver
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
[BTW, I held off saying anything until the first post. I'd wanted to
see how long we could collectively avoid the same old QKD thread. It
took five hours to the first post, fourteen to get to the first
significant
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
On Jan 27, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Noon Silk wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
wrote:
Or at least that's what everyone thought. More recently, various groups
have begun to
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Noon Silk noonsli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
Until we see scalable quantum authenticated quantum secrecy / key
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Noon Silk noonsli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
I don't see how I could have been much more specific given the two
things you quoted from me.
As I said, you could point to specific products that
Serious Flaw Emerges In Quantum Cryptography
Posted: 24 Jan 2012 09:10 PM PST
The perfect secrecy offered by quantum mechanics appears to have been scuppered
by a previously unknown practical problem, say physicists
The problem of sending messages securely has troubled humankind since
Why is this depressing? Because the snake oil was snakier or oilier?
--Paul Hoffman
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Or at least that's what everyone thought. More recently, various groups have
begun to focus on a fly in the ointment: the practical implementation of this
process. While quantum key distribution offers perfect security in practice,
the devices used to send quantum messages are inevitably
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:39:44 -0500, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
If your security widget vendor is malicious, they may include some
sort of storage in devices you purchase, record secret bits and
someone might pull them out in the future
Surely I am missing something here? Or
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Sven Moritz Hallberg pe...@khjk.org wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:39:44 -0500, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
Surely I am missing something here? Or is that really the news?
I thought the same thing and skimmed (very incompletely) through the
paper.
On 28/01/12 12:22 PM, Noon Silk wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Steven Bellovins...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
Or at least that's what everyone thought. More recently, various groups have
begun to focus on
a fly in the ointment: the practical implementation of this process. While
On Jan 27, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Noon Silk wrote:
So why didn't one of these real world people point this out, to
researchers? It's a bit too easy to claim something as obvious when
someone just told you.
There are any number of us who have been quantum skeptics for years, and the
responses
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
On Jan 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Noon Silk wrote:
[SNIP]
what you *can* say is that someone *selling*
*any* demonstratably-insecure crypto device as a secure one, is snake
oil. So, that is to say, you can only claim
18 matches
Mail list logo
