Re: Good enough for crypto?

From: Gregory G Rose (ggr_at_qualcomm.com)
Date: 11/29/03 

Date: 29 Nov 2003 10:37:49 -0800

In article <1fe3b4d6.0311291009.2f6c2768@posting.google.com>,
Scott Wilber <swilber@comscire.com> wrote:
>Well, you certainly have a one-track mind. In any case, it seems that
>your goal in life is to become GGR's publicist. I am sure he
>appreciates all your efforts on his behalf.

Sure, it's nice to have friends.

For the record, I said that there might be
cryptographic problems with using LFSRs for
filtering. Since details of your filtering system
are not forthcoming, I'm not able to say, one way
or the other, whether there are such problems or
not. But adding a couple of gates to make it
nonlinear certainly couldn't hurt.

What I didn't say was that your system as a whole
wasn't just fine. As far as I can tell, it will
deliver plenty of good random bits for any
application. But that isn't what I or the other
commenters have been commenting upon. We've been
trying to point out that keeping the precise
details secret does not enhance your reputation in
this community. That buzzwords like "infinitely
recursive linear feedback shift registers" and
especially "paranormal" lead to skepticism.

Anyway, you have a successful product, and to
some extent deservedly so, so feel free to ignore
my suggestion. I'll cope.

Greg. 

-- 
Greg Rose
232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F  E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C
Qualcomm Australia: http://www.qualcomm.com.au
Quantcast