Re: Should be in crypto for John E. Hadstate Re: just stupid?

From: Joe Peschel (jpeschel_at_no.spam.org)
Date: 07/29/05 

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:25:52 -0000

Crypto@S.M.S wrote in news:11ejqj3p1tabo0b@news.supernews.com:

> Joe Peschel wrote:
>> "Terry Ritter" <ritter@ciphersbyritter.com> wrote in
>> news:1122586838.721535.247060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>Joe Peschel wrote:
>>>
>>>>Crypto@S.M.S wrote in news:11dp8eotbau534f@news.supernews.com:
>>>>
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>>Ritter is not a cryptologist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And by that you mean he has nothing to contribute to this
>>>>>discussion?
>>>>
>>>>Not as an authority.
>>>
>>>In Science, the issue is the Argument, not the
>>>Person; implying otherwise would seem to be a
>>>sad, serious and fundamental error in reasoning.
>>
>>
>> No! Ritter was cited an as expert by this CryptoSMS fellow. His was
>> an "Appeal to Authority" argument, and was in this case, a logical
>> fallacy.
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
>>
>> An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the
>> following form:
>>
>> 1.Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
>> 2.Person A makes claim C about subject S.
>> 3.Therefore, C is true.
>>
>> This fallacy is committed when the person in question
>> is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More
>> formally, if person A is not qualified to make
>> reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will
>> be fallacious.
>>
>> In other words, if an authority is cited as an expert on the subject,
>> he ought to actually be an expert on the subject. In this case, the
>> issue is cryptology, and Mr. Ritter is an engineer and,
>> unfortunately, not a cryptologist.
>>
>
> Again you want to disparage a poster rather than reading
> what he is writing. Links were posted in answer to a request
> for documentation of others who hold similar views on multiple
> encryption.
>

Calling Ritter an engineer and not a cryptologist is hardly disparaging the
guy. He <i> is </i> an engineer and not cryptologist.

>>
>> When we encrypt with multiple different ciphers, the resulting
>> encryption needs to analyzed as if it was one (not a cascade of
>> ciphers) cipher. The ciphers in CryptoSMS have not been thoroughly
>> studied.
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>
> The individual ciphers in CryptoSMS (3IDEA, ARC4, Blowfish) have been
> extensively studied individually,

Where has 3IDEA been extensively analyzed?

> and in this particular
> implementation run on top of each other, each with unique keys. There
> is ample reason to believe that this will remain secure, even if one
> of the ciphers is broken. What can be more obvious, than not placing
> all your trust in one algorithm?
>

Since the program uses individual ciphers on top of each other, the
resulting encryption ought to be studied thoroughly, as if the
concatenation of ciphers was one cipher. What could be more obvious?

J 

-- 
__________________________________________
http://www.impeach-bush-now.org
Joe Peschel 
D.O.E. SysWorks                                 
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________

Relevant Pages
Quantcast