🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <n0e07t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Erik.Lindano@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> I realize that it must be a lot easier to just post theoretical 
> considerations on such matters than to do any _actual_ decryption, 
> but I thought that the experts here were knowledgeable in a 
> real, practical sense, and capable of putting their obvious 
> knowledge to actual use, that's all.  Perhaps I was mistaken.

No need to get offensive.

> The most peculiar thing about your rejection, and that of the other
> person who replied, is that both of you are rejecting the challenge
> _without having ever seen the product you are rejecting!_.  This 
> worries me immensely.  Makes me wonder if you may not simply be 
> avoiding the challenge under some pretenses.  Am I mistaken?

Yes, you are.  I was one of the people who replied directly, and I pointed
out that if you want us to tell you how strong the algorithm is, you
should tell us what the algorithm is.  I would be interested in the
challenge -- but without seeing the algorithm, I don't know whether it's
worth the trouble to try it.  If he's rediscovered Vigenere encipherment
with 8 bit characters, then we can explain to him what his problem is.  If
it's new and wonderful, he can make a splash.  What's the problem?

> But if all these experts are unwilling to even _try_... hmmmm.

Again, if you want cooperation, let's have a reasonable test rather than
this "if you people here think you're so smart, why are you scared to
accept any kind of silly challenge I make" attitude.  With DES, we saw the
algorithm and a lot of us took swings at it.  Several people have stuck
algorithms and challenges on sci.crypt and won -- Andreas Nowatzyk, for
one.  Others have proudly displayed their unbreakable algorithms and had
their clocks cleaned.  So -- if you want us to tell you how strong your
algorithm is, tell us what your algorithm is.

A word of advice to new cipher constructors: figure out what niche you
think your cipher belongs in.  Is it to be stronger than DES?  Just as
strong but faster to calculate?  Provably secure in some interesting way?
Is it a public-key system that doesn't violate any patents?  A lot of the
"new" ciphers we see are cute and perhaps nice for keeping your own diary,
but have no practical application in the real world, because the only
niche they're likely to be aimed at is already filled with something
better.

And another word of advice: don't try constructing new ciphers for some
niche unless you have practical experience in breaking them.  There's no
way you will anticipate the kinds of attacks that are available without
starting from the cryptanalysis end.

-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	U.S. National Debt: $4,128,313,176,663
	Your Share: $16,143