Re: Bruce Schneier Gets It Wrong

Segfault <usenet-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

[...]

Well, I don't think it's particularly new either - but I'd also be
sceptical of quotes attributed to him in either The Register or New
Scientist. NS is certainly not as well proof read as it used to be. I've
stopped buying it because of a number of factual errors in recent articles.

This is presumably the blog entry:
<http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/quasar_encrypti.html>

The New Scientist article contains the quote (the blog has "Does
anyone have the faintest clue what they're talking about here?...").

I imagine it's been edited, and Schneier would also have commented
that not-dissimilar schemes for producing random streams (sun spots,
stock values, etc.) have been proposed before---indeed, I'm sure he's
commented on several before.

[...]

.