🚀 go-pugleaf

Writes marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault):
 
 > For an encryption to present a challenge, it has to be robust 
 > under plaintext attack when the attacker has a copy of the 
 > mechanism.
 
 Spoken _ex cathedra_.  I think an encryption might be extremely 
 easy or extremely difficult to break whether one has a "copy of 
 the mechanism" or whether one doesn't. In the real world, during
 a practical attempt at breaking a code, you might not have the 
 algorithm. 
 
 
 > Whether he is just being cute, or thinks he has patent 
 > possibilities, the sad fact is that the only way Erik's 
 > friend will get anyone's attention is by publishing his 
 > method.
 
 We are not being cute. We wanted to make a test, and the test may
 or may not work, we don't know.  Or, if the test works, we may
 loose or we may win, we don't know.  Or, if we loose, it may mean
 something or it may not, we don't yet know.  These things remain 
 to be seen, but there are other avenues open as well.  We just 
 though you guys might enjoy a simple little challenge... :-)  But 
 the cryptolibido here seems so low...  tsk... tsk... the 
 crypthormone levels are waaaaaay down...
 
 > There may be a way out: He can claim that the method is the 
 > key. In that case he should publish the technique used to 
 > generate a very large number of cryptographically different 
 > methods. 
 
 We've really not claimed that. We haven't claimed anything. But we 
 will not publish the algorithm for reasons already explained.
 
 
 > I've already proposed something very much like that in this group, 
 > which (strangely|sadly) didn't stimulate any discussion.
 
 By now, Id' tend to say: sadly, yes.  But _strangely_?  I don't 
 know... my feeling is that you've run across the NIH syndrome as 
 well.
 

--- Maximus 2.00