[13178] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: The Pure Crypto Project's Hash Function
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Salz)
Sat May 3 21:32:11 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 20:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
To: Ralf Senderek <ralf@senderek.de>
Cc: "cryptography@metzdowd.com" <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0305032042520.2631-100000@safe.senderek.de>
> Because it is "cheap" and not because the users understand what they are
> doing. There may be other reasons, but none of them is "clarity" or
> "conciousness of what's going on".
So you expect end users to understand modular exponentiation?
You expect them to understand a brand-new hashing mechanism built on
modexp? You expect them to be able to evaluate this brand-new
mechanism against an industry standard which has had years of study
(albeit perhaps not by Dobbertin :)?
Users are not capabable of evaluating cryptography.
You sir, do not seem to have enough of a world view to be inventing it.
> neccessary to regain control over what you do when you use
> crypto PCP is a very, very good approach!
>
> So please elaborate on your concept of "good" and "bad".
Very simple: known to be cryptographically secure. SHA-1 is good. Your
invention is bad. End of discussion (from me).
/r$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
