Re: "Alien" cryptanalysis

From: Tom St Denis (tomstdenis_at_iahu.ca)
Date: 05/20/03 

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:08:29 GMT

clem wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2003 21:18:58 GMT, Tom St Denis <tomstdenis@iahu.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tom St Denis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A good rule of thumb is to ...
>>>>That normally is a good idea. So even if you missed an attack likely
>>>>case being the cipher is not entirely crippled.
>>>
>>>
>>>What theory underlies that? Sounds like a variety of Snake Oil
>>>to me.
>>
>>Logic bomb intercepted.
>>Conversation terminated.
>>
>
>
> For someone who claims to have the knowledge that you do, I find this
> answer to be weak, and to actually make Douglas Gwyn's point stronger.
>
> From a layman position, I find your comments to be Snake Oil in
> appearance, too.
>
> Perhaps you may need to slow down a bit and allow your brain to catch
> up with your mouth, as you appear to be making many irresponsible
> statements in this thread.

I was completely mistaken. Excuse the original posts. Biham actually
has an attack on 31 rounds of Serpent. He's holding back. Schneier,
well we all know his wang-fu abilities can master 15 rounds of Twofish.

Those belgiums... well they mastered the square and squashed 13 rounds
of the Rijndael.

To all in sci.crypt I apologize for being so outright blatantly wrong.
I obviously don't know anything and I sincerely want to show my
apologetic nature. If you meet me in person anytime I 'll buy ya a beer!

Tom

Loading