Re: The Pain of Cryptography

From: Anton Stiglic (stiglic_at_cs.mcgill.ca)
Date: 12/03/03 

Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:55:23 -0800

> The firstname "David", and the surname "Wagner" do not necessarily
> unambiguously define a single human being, so I'd not be hugely
> surprised if the trusted cryptographer we all know and love were
> to say "not me guv'". I could just believe "crikey, me brother's
> stag party on 8th Oct was a monster, I don't remember writing that
> at all, I'd even forgotten that I'm a professor at UCB!".
>
> This is secret-key crypto, I'd have thought that the 1600+-bit key
> would have flashed snake-oil warning signs left, right and centre.

That does seem strange. I just skimmed over the 2003/218 eprint
article. There are allot of warnings stating that that was just a first
attempt at cryptanalysis and that future work is needed. Some of the
analysis looks like what our trusted cryptographer would have
written. But the 1600-bit keys seems fishy, it seems odd that he
would have accepted that (unless he got paid very well to do the
analysis, in which case I would understand why he took the time
to do it).

--Anton

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Pain of Cryptography
    ... Phil Carmody wrote: ... >unambiguously define a single human being, ... >surprised if the trusted cryptographer we all know and love were ... I don't even have a stag party to blame it on, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: The Pain of Cryptography
    ... daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) writes: ... >>unambiguously define a single human being, ... >>surprised if the trusted cryptographer we all know and love were ... > for public review of such schemes... ...
    (sci.crypt)
Quantcast