🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul31.034244.9150@chpc.utexas.edu> jonathan@chpc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) writes:
>In article <tom.712397505@cluster> tom@stallion.oz.au (Thomas Essebier) writes:
>>By far not being an expert on cryptology, I would appreciate some 
>>comments on the crypto scheme below. 
>> [ use a standard linear congruential random number generator (= RNG),
>>   primed with the key, to derive a stream of bits, which is then xor-ed
>>   with the data ]
>>
>
>In general, the fundamental lesson of crypto history is that good
>cryptosystems are designed *only* by people who have both theoretical
>knowledge of, *and* practical experience with, breaking existing
>high-quality cryptosystems.  In other words, unless you have a lot
>of crypto experience you're unlikely to come up with a system that
>would withstand professional attack.
>
>
>- Jonathan Thornburg
>  University of Texas at Austin / Physics Dept / Center for Relativity
>  and (for a few more months) U of British Columbia / {Astronomy,Physics}


Not True. In fact the principle used by many cipher systems were invented by
invented by amateurs (as well as a lot of garbage).  It takes a 
professional to cast in into a framework were it will be strong. For example,
public key cryptography was not invented by professional codemakers.
It was originally invented by a student at Stanford. Experts took the 
principle and developed it into a strong system.

In contrast, it usually takes  profesional codebreakers to break a system.
Cryptanalysis doesn't seem to be a subject were amateurs thrive.