🚀 go-pugleaf

Writes cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison):
 
 > The point which should be made (in the FAQ at least, and probably 
 > here) is that the fact that no one reading this group wants to 
 > take this time does not imply that the method is secure.  
 
 The point should also be made that neither does it mean the opposite.
 In other words, it means neither thing, which leaves me wondering 
 why you bothered to make the point.  
 
 (Actually, some people _did express_ willingness to try.)
 
 > This attempt goes under the name "security by obscurity" and 
 > protects only against lazy attackers.  A system which is secure 
 > only against lazy attackers isn't worth anything.
 
 If the intention of my original challenge had been what you 
 describe, then you might have been right. But my intention was not 
 what you describe. My intention was to offer a test and see if 
 anyone would willingly participate. No intentional "obscurity" was 
 specifically intended.
 
 In any case, OBSCURITY is what cryptanalysis deals with all the
 time, is it not?   OBSCURITY is the subject matter of the 
 cryptomancer.  The objective is either to produce OBSCURITY, or 
 to extract light from OBSCURITY.
 
 In this newsgroup, OBSCURITY is definitely not a bad word...
 

--- Maximus 2.00