11 ms·
Right, but the goal isn't to make a strong or useful encryption tool. The goal is to show that cryptography is, at it's core, rather simple. It's simple enough
by s_tec 11y ago
Right, but the goal isn't to make a strong or useful encryption tool. The goal is to show that cryptography is, at it's core, rather simple. It's simple enough that we can cram "real" symmetric encryption into the size of a tweet.
It's like building an electric motor out of some scrap wire and some fridge magnets - the motor isn't really useful for anything, but it teaches the basic idea in a way that anybody can appreciate. A useful motor would have bearings, a commutator, multiple windings, an iron core, etc., but adding all that stuff just obscures the basics. Criticizing a school-kid's motor for being weak and inefficient is completely missing the point.
This program isn't supposed to be useful. It's supposed to prove a point.
- tptacek 11y agoIs RC4 secure? For this use-case, yes. That was the point where I went to go write an HN comment, before seeing that Sean had already written it. Is RC4 secure? No.
- dadrian 11y agoI initially thought the article was satire.
- sdevlin 11y agoIf that is true, the author should avoid words like "secure" and "unbreakable".
- DanBC 11y ago> but the goal isn't to make a strong or useful encryption tool > > With this (and your computer) you can secure a message with a password in a way that's unbreakable. I can't break it, your government can't break it, other people's governments can't break it. Secure. Some governments execute their citizens. If a crypto tool is neither strong nor useful it probably shouldn't be described as such.