> At the risk of beating Vipul to the punch, it would be nice if:
>
>1. People read the past discussions on this particular topic in the
> mailing list archives, including Vipul's response, and
My initial mail was to the effect of "I could not find what I wanted to
know in the archives/
Jordan Ritter wrote:
>1. People read the past discussions on this particular topic in the
> mailing list archives, including Vipul's response, and
It has become traditional on the "internet" to compile answers to
"frequently asked questions" and display them prominently on one's
"website
Title: RE: [Razor-users] TeS algorithm
The original message started off:
[This is presuambly a frequently asked question, but I read the FAQ, and spent a couple of hours looking through the archives to no avail, so here goes].
So however it's listed, it's not clear enough. =)
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:34:01PM -0500, Rob wrote:
# Yes, this is very difficult to do, and it requires a lot of work,
# assuming it is even possible. I am not saying that people on this
# list should come up with a brand new, fool proof trust algorithm. I
# am saying that people should be awa
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:59:17PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Yes, it is definitely security through obscurity. However, I'll suggest
> that you consider if it is possible to have a publicly disclosed algorithm
> for this system which is NOT possible to abuse. I'll admit I'm not a god of
> cod
I'll agree with your statement, and am quite familiar with that tennant of
cryptographic reasearch. Unfortunately your comparison is not a
particularly accurate one.
A cryptographic algorithm is secure if the algorithm is public, but the
security is derived from a key which is kept secret. Both
Yes, it is definitely security through obscurity. However, I'll suggest
that you consider if it is possible to have a publicly disclosed algorithm
for this system which is NOT possible to abuse. I'll admit I'm not a god of
coding, but I can think no such possible mechanism. If you can think of a
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:28:46PM -0500, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> This feels like another case of security through obscurity though. It would
> seem that having a public review of the algorithms would not only lead to
> fixing possible holes in the algorithm, but would also continue to lead to
> the
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:21:04PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> It is possible to make the system somewhat resistant to such abuses,
> but it's nearly impossible to make the system effective at weeding out
> bad submitters and trusting of good submitters without making it
> easily abused.
This see
Title: RE: [Razor-users] TeS algorithm
This feels like another case of security through obscurity though. It would seem that having a public review of the algorithms would not only lead to fixing possible holes in the algorithm, but would also continue to lead to the development of more Free
The main problem with telling people exactly how the TeS system works, is
that this allows malicious spammers to pollute the razor TeS system.
Telling people what their score is allows them to derive how the system
works, making it effectively the same as telling them how the TeS system
works,
11 matches
Mail list logo
