[11826] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Proofs of security
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (R. A. Hettinga)
Mon Oct 7 10:11:44 2002
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:11:39 -0400
To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs@philodox.com>,
cryptography@wasabisystems.com
From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com>
--- begin forwarded text
Status: RO
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 20:27:58 -0400
From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
To: cypherpunks@lne.com
Subject: Proofs of security
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com
Has anyone done any research into how much better new cryptosystems
with proofs of security do, as opposed to their unproven cousins? It
seems that having a proof of security doesn't actually improve the
odds that a system will survive attacks. But thats my intuition, not
a proven fact. ;)
Has anyone read a stack of papers and done some statistics?
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
--- end forwarded text
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
