Re: Size of a new hash standard
From: Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shen_at_t-online.de)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:43:12 +0200
Bryan Olson wrote:
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> > Bryan Olson wrote:
> >> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> >> > I can't comment on the philosophical issue involved. But in
> >> > a recent thread 'A basic question about hashing' I sketched
> >> > two schemes using bijective polynomials with degrees of,
> >> > say, 3 or higher mod 2^n (n being the block size), which
> >> > (at least in my intuitive view) should be hard to invert.
> >> > I think that the second scheme there could in fact be quite
> >> > viable (a part of the first scheme could eventually be
> >> > incorporated too.)
> >> Are these views based on anything, or are they just un-informed
> >> guesses, like your previous schemes?
> > They are intuitive, somehow (i.e. a little bit) supported in
> > my own mind by what I knew about the difficulties of dealing
> > with polynomial equations in reals (that's an analogical
> > reasoning, rather ad hoc). Is that exteremely bad as an
> > idea as such?
> Certainly not appropriate for a sci group. This method of
> guessing one problem is like another has failed you over and
> over before. (Plus in this case, it seems you didn't even
> bother to look up the problem. Degree three or higher?)
Why is it in sciences not appropriate to put up ideas that
have no proofs but instead come from intuitions? Have you
never heard of 'conjetures' in math, at least one of which
is quite important even for crypto?
> > (If you think so, then please ignore it, as
> > I repeatedly said elsewhere to you.)
> Don't you think newer readers deserve some kind of warning?
> They might not yet know what your name on a post means.
I highly wonder why you continue to rant. I was referring
to one of two schemes I stated in my thread 'A basic question
about hashing' which began with:
The recent stories about potentially conceivable problems
in a number of well-established hashing schemes caused me
to ponder about a question which seems to me as layman to
be a basic, i.e. general, one (though it certainly could
turn out to be simply a very naive question reflecting my
And I put there phrases expressing unsureness/doubt like
'could the result be a quite good hashing?'.
What do you think that one could more strongly express the
humbleness of one's knowledge than with words like 'layman',
'naive', 'sheer ignornace', etc. ???
In another thread 'A chaining mode with integrity check' I
have expressly put the following note in order to block your
The above is premature/ad-hoc/intuitive/tentative/......
Please kindly comment objectively without personal flavours
or else ignore it entirely in order to minimize bandwidth.
I think that the first line above is more than enough as
warning for any readers, whether new or not.
M. K. Shen