NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/crypt/5170

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!reeds
From: [e-mail] (Jim Reeds)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: New ENcryption - a Challenge
Summary: we are acting like little kids
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Nov 92 06:47:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24267
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 23



Oh, can we stop nagging about this thing?  To an outsider, the collective
body of sci.crypt regulars must seem like a smug self-satisfied cabal of
mystagogues.  I know we are not, but to an impartial outside observer we
must seem that way.  All this "go to the library, read the FAQ, come back
when you have become a good boy" stuff is pretty shabby.

Indeed, to an outsider, a challenge problem of form "here is cipher text,
please supply plain text and description of crypto algorithm" is eminently
reasonable.  Is this not what Friedman & company did when faced with
their first Purple traffic?  Is this not what every cryptanalysis student
does, who does the problem sets in the course?

How about some effort at compromise?  Such as:  can the users' manual
for the new encryption algorithm be published?  Would they be willing to
set up a black-box server, to automatically remotely encrypt or decrypt
messages of our choice?  (Suppose someone offered you just black-box access
to a 1950's US or Russian system.  Would you disdain to try it out, because
it violates some precept of Kerckhoffs you read about in a book?)

Is no one willing to attempt to solve a puzzle because it is posed in
politically incorrect terms?