From: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:27:41 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Cryptanalysis
In-Reply-To: <ad676d9b0c021004b946@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199603100237.VAA02706@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Timothy C. May wrote:

| cryptanalysis. (Not to sound harsh to Allen, but why would anyone ask here
| on the list for recommendations to such a standard subject when Schneier,
| Garfinkel, Denning, etc. all have books listed?)

	Niether Schneier nor Garfinkel really talk about analysis.
The only book I can think of is Biham's "Cryptanalysis of the DES,"
and thats on a single technique.

	I don't know of any books on 'applied cryptanalysis.'  The
public knowledge is all in the heads of a few practitioners, and the
papers they've written.

| And there are so many interesting areas to pursue with using and furthering
| modern crypto, that I just can't understand how people can think that
| classical cryptanalysis is useful. It might be fun, as a hobby, but it has
| no bearing on modern systems. (Well, I'm exaggerating a bit. I suspect that
| classical cryptanalysts at the NSA or GCHQ might have some insights into
| some problems with modern systems, such as traffic analysis. So I shouldn't

	While classical cryptanalysis is not likely to be useful,
traditional cryptanalysis hasn't changed much.  Stealing keys, bribing
people, getting physical access to systems is still far more useful
than trying to brute force a key.

Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume