🚀 go-pugleaf

In <n0e07t@ofa123.fidonet.org>
Erik.Lindano@ofa123.fidonet.org
gets righteous:

> Writes lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen):
>  > Please send your friend to the library first.  Also, please see 
>  > my recent posting "temporary, independent FAQ" for sci.crypt.
>  I already sent him to the library. He says he couldn't find anything
>  related to his program there. 

	Then maybe it is time to tell us more about this program.
	The Number One assumption of cryptothingies is that if
	you know the algorithm, so does the opposition.  The only
	thing you can really assume to be secure is your key.
	But even this is under attack... at all times.

	Experience has shown it is safest to take this for granted.
	Does your friend know better?  Let him/her tell.

	The proposed algorithm seems to do away with keys.  Are
	we assuming right?

>  > It is much, much easier to propose a system than to analyze it 
>  > properly.  You will probably find little enthusiasm here and that 
>  > may be a mystery to you until you read the FAQ file.
>  I don't want to get myself involved in the technical aspects of 
>  cryptology (-graphy?). I was simply in the process of trying to 
>  judge something that had been presented to me, and I wanted to 
>  find out whether any of the people who often write authoritative 
>  articles here about encryption, etc., are really able to actually 
>  crack a certain encryption product or whether they're just good 
>  at writing theoretical posts, that's all.

	a) it is a lot easier to imagine than to do.
	b) it is a lot easier to encrypt than to decrypt.
	c) theorizing is fun, doing is hard, but both
	   require solid knowledge.

	There is a tendency to resist the inkling of an idea
	about a whisper of change in this newsgroup, but you
	will punch through if you really have something to say.

>  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.

	The problem is not that the "experts" can't do it; it is
	that the "experts" could not care less.  You have not managed
	to give them enough of a challenge...  or enough of a reward.

>  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?

	You are mistaken, if only because you have kept the
	product hidden.

>  In my experience in the technical world, I've found that prouncing 
>  some idea to be unworthy _ex cathedra_ gathers applause only among 
>  the NIH (Not-Invented-Here) crowd.  The rest of the world sees only 
>  their arbitrary pronouncement, and doesn't give much credit to the
>  rejecter(s). 

	You are so right about this.  But does it always
	mean that rejected ideas are automatically valid?

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

	Then it must mean the problem was not laid out in a
	clear fashion, or that it was misrepresented.



--
 Alain
 [ ... usual disclaimer... ]