From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 03:25:53 +0800
To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Subject: Re: Snake-Oil FAQ
In-Reply-To: <199609220854.DAA27487@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Message-ID: <32456CE1.B60@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


William H. Geiger III wrote:
> In <v03007808ae6a2dfa2a73@[206.170.115.3]>, on 09/21/96 at 04:47 PM,
>    Lance Cottrell <loki@infonex.com> said:
> >I am setting up just such a list. I plan to award products for both
> >excellent and lousy crypto. This really should be a committee (yuch)
> >effort, so if you would like to participate, please let me know. 
> I would be intrested in this. I would like to see the following
> information made available for any product that made it on to the 
> list:
> Detailed listings of pro/cons of the product.
> Contact with the authors & listing of any rebutials they may have for 
> the cons.
> A appendix to the list explaining why the individule points are a pro 
> or a con for crypto products.

When you get right down to it, this calls for a mini-encyclopedia of 
crypto products (or even sub-products such as pre-processors or 
"encryption engines").

The basic outline for any products included (and don't forget, just 
getting included is some sort of endorsement, if you know what I mean) 
could be a feature/bug listing, using common crypto terminology, and 
could be followed by side-by-side argument paragraphs from the author 
and from a reputable review panel.

The usefulness of the list would probably depend on:
1. The participation of all those names people like to name-drop on this
   forum.
2. And/or the quality of the list itself if done without (1.) above.
   In this latter case, it could still be useful, but the variances in
   evaluation owing to personal bias would be difficult to overcome.