cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1993-06-03 - Re: snake oil

Header Data

From: Marc Horowitz <marc@GZA.COM>
To: Nickey MacDonald <i6t4@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Message Hash: dcec08a0696fc6b5b1b7a8b680387a53921178151f2af1d20cf38755752212f2
Message ID: <9306032252.AA12490@dun-dun-noodles.aktis.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.05.9306031942.B29415-a100000@jupiter>
UTC Datetime: 1993-06-03 22:53:03 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 15:53:03 PDT

Raw message

From: Marc Horowitz <marc@GZA.COM>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 15:53:03 PDT
To: Nickey MacDonald <i6t4@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>
Subject: Re: snake oil
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.05.9306031942.B29415-a100000@jupiter>
Message-ID: <9306032252.AA12490@dun-dun-noodles.aktis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>> If I just dreamed up a new gee whiz "new" cypher, should I post it to the
>> list for comments, or is this frowned on?  (As it happens, I happen to
>> have what I **think** is a new approach to cyphering, and the answer to this
>> question will determine wheter anyone hears about it or not...)

This list is, IMHO, for the discussion of privacy enforced by
technology in the hands of the user..  New approaches (like remailers
or money algorithms) are within the domain of this group.  New
encryption algorithms are better discussed in the newsgroup sci.crypt.

I admit that I'm a bit skeptical.  So far, every new encryption scheme
someone has proposed here has either been trivially defeated, or done
before.  I'm tired of showing how most schemes are reducible to a
one-time pad or codebook :-)

In any case, I think there are more experienced cryptographers on
sci.crypt than on this list, but I could be wrong.

		Marc

Thread