🚀 go-pugleaf

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.173701.8858@ncar.ucar.edu> prz@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Philip
> Zimmermann) writes:
>>In conclusion, I'd like to point out that normally, when an academic
>>paper is published that claims a cryptosystem is weak, it generally
>>includes some real data to back up its claims.  Such data is
>>conspicuously absent here.
> 
> This attitude is a hiding behind "academic" practice in an area where
> Sidelnikov has raised the most serious doubts about a number of
> aspects of PGP as presently implemented. For him to be both an
> Academician (the highest rank in Soviet Science, given to very few,
> and after massive and extended demonstrations of competence) and a
> Laboratory Manager means we ought to take his words with at least as
> much seriousness (but without the associated "special pleading" doubts
> some might have) as similar words from the head of the cryptanalysis
> division (or whatever it is called) of the NSA.

It looked to me like Philip has done so, and is therefore interested in
seeing some actual data provided by Sidelnikov.

> Let me be perfectly clear here. Sidelnikov's standing in the
> cryptology field in the Soviet scientific community is of the most
> senior level, and that's not a statement about science politics.

It is, however, painfully close to argumentum ad verecundiam.


mathew