🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov17.103439.19143@cactus.org>, ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
>  This program was not a success (they "ran it up the flagpole" and
>  nobody saluted), but, clearly, NSA *is* prepared to support the
>  concept of data encryption for business.  Not unexpectedly, there
>  was no proposal to provide low-cost consumer encryption, a topic
>  which has been at the heart of the argument here for the past week.

This forum just got finished with toasting a student for doing exactly
what the NSA did with their proposal.  We've got this great crypto
that we think is secure, but we won't tell you how it works, or show
you the algorithm.  You put these special chips that you can't examine
in your equipment, and we promise they don't have any special "features."

In response to last weeks challange by a student, professional, after
professional said it wasn't even worth their time to examine a cryptographic
system unless it was published.  How could NSA's proposal have been
taken as a serious proposal if they don't even follow the minimum requirement
for a professional to even consider the system?

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100