3 ms·

> "so-called" cryptographer That would be an astoundingly stupid thing to say about Phil Rogaway...

tptacek 10y ago
I'll find the actual mailing list post, but to get a flavor for what Rogaway dealt with at IPSEC, here's a snippet from a post Pinboard coughed up for a simple [rogaway ipsec] search. This is Perry Metzger, who is just my favorite. It appears that by failing to be as vicious as possible about Phil Rogaway's lack of understanding of the architecture of IPSP that I have inspired people to take him seriously. It also appears that Phil has been lobbying people to have them comment. I can understand how even an intelligent reader, going through his comments, could become confused about the architectural issues here. However, let me say that I found his comments to be almost completely without merit. Other than a few comments about places where the text used ambiguous language (i.e. textual ambiguity) I found almost nothing of value in what he had to say. Later: Found it. It's Bill Simpson: > You do not facilitate analysis > by saying that Photuris is only required to work when its > primitives are drawn from a certain concrete set of possibilities; > exactly the opposite-- you render cryptographic analysis impossible. > Thank you, thank you! It gladdens my heart to hear that *self-described cryptographers* find that analysis is impossible! I was worried that there would be some subtle flaw that would facilitate cryptanalysis. Now that you have assured us that it is not possible, that makes Photuris the only protocol that has ever come to perfection! Emphasis mine.
- Ar-Curunir 10y ago
  Wow, this Bill Simpson person does not sound like a nice person, nor a smart one...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Here is the problem: Bill Simpson is actually very smart, and well-respected. But IETF-land is an alternative universe that strongly prefers its own norms and processes above any other influences. People get involved in standards work and build social capital within IETF working groups, and feel threatened by and dismissive of outsiders. This happens with, I think, all standards groups. The irony is that the IETF was created in part as a reaction to these standards group pathologies. But they're too powerful to resist.
    - api 10y ago
      ... and now we know why most network protocols are over engineered junk.
  - EvanAnderson 10y ago
    Reading the exchange between Ron Rivest and Perry Metzcar here[1] is almost painful. Bill Simpson has a post near the end and it seems in character for the "anyone who was good at Unix, and standard-issue bloody-mindedness." observation that tptacek made. [1] http://theory.csail.mit.edu/ftp-data/pub/ftp/people/rivest/ipsec/mail http://theory.csail.mit.edu/ftp-data/pub/ftp/people/rivest/i...

I'll find the actual mailing list post, but to get a flavor for what Rogaway dealt with at IPSEC, here's a snippet from a post Pinboard coughed up for a simple [rogaway ipsec] search. This is Perry Metzger, who is just my favorite. It appears that by failing to be as vicious as possible about Phil Rogaway's lack of understanding of the architecture of IPSP that I have inspired people to take him seriously. It also appears that Phil has been lobbying people to have them comment. I can understand how even an intelligent reader, going through his comments, could become confused about the architectural issues here. However, let me say that I found his comments to be almost completely without merit. Other than a few comments about places where the text used ambiguous language (i.e. textual ambiguity) I found almost nothing of value in what he had to say. Later: Found it. It's Bill Simpson: > You do not facilitate analysis > by saying that Photuris is only required to work when its > primitives are drawn from a certain concrete set of possibilities; > exactly the opposite-- you render cryptographic analysis impossible. > Thank you, thank you! It gladdens my heart to hear that *self-described cryptographers* find that analysis is impossible! I was worried that there would be some subtle flaw that would facilitate cryptanalysis. Now that you have assured us that it is not possible, that makes Photuris the only protocol that has ever come to perfection! Emphasis mine.

Ar-Curunir 10y ago
Wow, this Bill Simpson person does not sound like a nice person, nor a smart one...
- tptacek 10y ago
  Here is the problem: Bill Simpson is actually very smart, and well-respected. But IETF-land is an alternative universe that strongly prefers its own norms and processes above any other influences. People get involved in standards work and build social capital within IETF working groups, and feel threatened by and dismissive of outsiders. This happens with, I think, all standards groups. The irony is that the IETF was created in part as a reaction to these standards group pathologies. But they're too powerful to resist.
  - api 10y ago
    ... and now we know why most network protocols are over engineered junk.
- EvanAnderson 10y ago
  Reading the exchange between Ron Rivest and Perry Metzcar here[1] is almost painful. Bill Simpson has a post near the end and it seems in character for the "anyone who was good at Unix, and standard-issue bloody-mindedness." observation that tptacek made. [1] http://theory.csail.mit.edu/ftp-data/pub/ftp/people/rivest/ipsec/mail http://theory.csail.mit.edu/ftp-data/pub/ftp/people/rivest/i...