Re: Don't use S-boxes!

From: sammy (
Date: 11/23/04

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:08:51 -0800

On 23 Nov 2004 08:48:50 -0800, (karl malbrain) wrote:

>sammy <> wrote in message news:<>...
>> On 22 Nov 2004 18:47:12 -0800, wrote:
>> >
>> >David Eather wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>> >> >> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> It is not the place of the cryptographic community to abuse the
>> >discoverer.
>> >
>> >Perhaps not as a group effort, I just can't say. I do know the effect
>> >I had on cryptographer Bruce S in March 1999.
>> >Thanks for the complement. karl m
>> Your remarks are becoming obtuse and self-centered.
>The first thing in setting up INDUCTIVE REASONING is to estabish a
>base case.

Although it has proceeded past inductive and has become circular.

>> And it is safe to say Eather's remarks were neither a compliment to
>> you, or, as you misused the word, a complement. His remarks do not
>> complete, but rather call into question your process.
>Then you assume TRUTH at case ZERO, or ONE based soley on the
>ENVIRONMENT at the FIRST level of the inductive variable.

No. His remarks were cogent, clear, and your mis-interpretation,
whether purposeful or from ignorance is still evident.

>> And, I might add, the continued self-generated, inordinate concern
>> about the regent's permission regarding DJB's work is non-interesting.
>Next you establish validity/relevancy at level N+1 based on the
>assumption that it's completely true at level N.

No. Merely your incessant "wondering out loud" about the regent's is
about something other than correctness, truthfullmess, or fairness.

"Me thinks the lady doth protest a bit much"

>> You've brought it up more than once and no one is concerned or
>> surprised like you are, and for good reason.
>> He obviously does not work under the restrictions you wish for, and
>> that is beneficial. Save up some money, buy a clue, and get over it.
>Gee, if only it were so easy.... karl m

Your relevance in this thread wanes...

Relevant Pages