IssueRaiser

"Fuck you" would have indeed been a more appropriate response to "how dare you try to implement crypto" FUD.

"Fuck you" would have indeed been a more appropriate response to "how dare you try to implement crypto" FUD. Crypto is hard, but it's no harder than a lot of other hard things. If you think someone's crypto is broken, you could point out why you think it's broken. I see no evidence that consigning crypto to a forbidden zone is going to improve real world security, and the old "mature" cruftpiles seem to manifest problems at least as often as newer systems designed with the benefit of hindsight. For example, any competent designer of a newer system would always authenticate before decrypting-- something that was not clearly understood when SSL was developed.

Posted by api on May 6, 2015, 6:01 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,500 issues0 comments

reliability (Other)

"Fuck you" would have indeed been a more appropriate response to "how dare you try to implement crypto" FUD.

apiMay 6, 2015, 6:01 PM

"Fuck you" would have indeed been a more appropriate response to "how dare you try to implement crypto" FUD. Crypto is hard, but it's no harder than a lot of other hard things. If you think someone's crypto is broken, you could point out why you think it's broken. I see no evidence that consigning crypto to a forbidden zone is going to improve real world security, and the old "mature" cruftpiles seem to manifest problems at least as often as newer systems designed with the benefit of hindsight. For example, any competent designer of a newer system would always authenticate before decrypting-- something that was not clearly understood when SSL was developed.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue