[cryptography] QODE(quick offline data encryption)

Open eSignForms yozons at gmail.com
Tue Jan 6 18:49:53 EST 2015


If it's so foolish to build your own crypto, how foolish would a Fortune 
500 company be to deploy it?

Too bad there's not a crypto hacker service to test out various crypto 
algorithms.  We're always told to trust the government-sponsored crypto 
like AES when we know full well that governments are not trustworthy.  
All crypto looks secure ;-)

On 1/6/15 1:32 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
> So the practical reason behind everyone saying "unless you have
> qualifications, etc, don't do this" is because, even if you make
> something and say it's just for your learning or a joke or w/e,
> someone (no joke) *will* use it and then some Fortune 500 will fall
> over because of your joke code. So, yeah, don't do this - as in, it'd
> be best to take it down for everyone's sanity.
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:25 PM, John Young <jya at pipeline.com> wrote:
>> At 04:55 PM 1/6/2015, you wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that is the received canon of cryptosystems:
>>
>> 1.Sarcasm toward unqualified efforts,
>>
>> 2. Designing cryptosysystems is *hard*.
>>
>> 3. No, that's too mild, it's mindblowingly* hard.
>>
>> 4. It doesn't start with code, it strts with mathematical description.
>>
>> 5. No, even that is not true, it starts with years of study.
>>
>> 6. Denizens of this list have seen a hundred cryptosystems crash and burn.
>>
>> 7. Some of them designed by very clever people.
>>
>> 8. Designing crytposystems is hard.
>>
>> 9. Don't even think of trying it, not unless a fewyears spent studying the
>> state of the art.
>>
>> 10. Sorry to be blunt.
>>
>> Not to mention how often thclaims are made despite thier sounding like
>> alchemy and astrology, cultish, religious, authoritarian, scientistic,
>> recruitment
>> for arcane pursuit of unsolvable mysteries, and hardly applicable to the
>> long
>> and varied history of cryptology suffused with bizarre claims, subterfuge,
>> deception, betrayal, treachery, obligatory prevarication, inherent cheating,
>> diabolical misrepresentation of trustworthiness, venomous accusations
>> against competitors, unrestrained dupery and duplicity against the unwary,
>> citizen and royalty alike.
>>
>> Nor that mathematics is a modern innovation in cryptology and remains
>> its weakest element due to inability of its applicators to wed it to code
>> and hardware without recourse to alchemy and astrology favored by
>> promoters, sales and PhDs who dream of math as golden key to natsec.
>>
>> QODE, QED.
>>
>>> Kevin wrote: > I figured I'd start building my own open source encryption
>>> algorithm: > https://github.com/kjsisco/qode If you feel overwhelmed by the
>>> sarcasm directed your way, there is a reason for that. Designing
>>> cryptosystems is *hard*. No, that's too mild. Is *mindblowingly* hard. It
>>> doesn't start with code. It starts with a mathematical description. No, even
>>> that is not true: It starts with years and years of study. The denisens of
>>> this list have seen a hundred cryptosystem crash and burn. Some of them were
>>> designed by very clever people. Did I mention that designing cryptosystems
>>> is hard? Don't even think of trying it, not unless you have first spent a
>>> few years studying the state of the art. Sorry to be so blunt, but I think
>>> it will save you a whole lot of grief. – Harald
>>> _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list
>>> cryptography at randombit.net
>>> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography </x-flowed>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cryptography mailing list
>> cryptography at randombit.net
>> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
> _______________________________________________
> cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at randombit.net
> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography



More information about the cryptography mailing list