5 ms·

I totally understand why you're saying what you are, you want folks to be safe... but I think this approach from cyptographers hurts the rest of us, in that mos

I totally understand why you're saying what you are, you want folks to be safe... but I think this approach from cyptographers hurts the rest of us, in that most of us will at some point say, as a result of comments like this, "I'm not a cryptographer, I cannot do this correctly... so fuck trying." I think critiquing this crypto used would be more relevant if he was implementing his own and not using using an outdated library. Instead of linking to proof about how right you are, since you obviously are, perhaps next time you could link to resources for us plebs to stay up-to-date. How do you keep tabs on "all the things" like this? /shrug just my two cents.

barrkel 8y ago
I think explaining why the crypto usage is wrong is useful, where a straight-up admonishment that someone is doing it wrong isn't. The principle here is explained, at least partially: if you don't use a random IV for every message, you're not secure. So if the API you're using doesn't let you specify the IV, or doesn't default to a random IV that leaves you with undecipherable blocks if you don't fetch its assigned value, you know it's wrong. It's good info.
Waterluvian 8y ago
Cryptography is like civil engineering or surgery. If you're going to do it in production, you need to do it right. I think it's akin to a family physician saying, "this is best left to the surgeons." Don't be fooled that just because you can write code, you can do crypto. But also, you can learn and you can also completely mess around in a safe, non-production environment. Maybe my analogy is a bit weak.
- nicoburns 8y ago
  I think your analogy is pretty spot on. Cryptography is an additional skill on top of general programming, and it's a difficult one to master. And if you haven't mastered it, then you shouldn't be trying to do it in important situations (assuming there is an alternative).
- andy_ppp 8y ago
  I disagree, cryptography is like any programming; make sure it’s correct with tests, peer review and validation and check the warnings (this warning should be an error). The fact that a small example gets this badly wrong and the API allows this is probably down to the ecosystem, not down to only cryptographers being “allowed” to used crypto. The surgery idea is wrong; surgery is the implementation of the encryption which no one is advocating - this is more like a pharmacist giving you the wrong pills and you not reading the instructions/warnings before taking them.
tlrobinson 8y ago
> most of us will at some point say, as a result of comments like this, "I'm not a cryptographer, I cannot do this correctly... so fuck trying." I'd argue that in most cases not using crypto is better than using subtly broken crypto. At least users aren't deluded into thinking it's secure, and can take that into consideration when using (or not using) the system.
zapzupnz 8y ago
> "I'm not a cryptographer, I cannot do this correctly... so fuck trying." Whoever says this, whoever doesn't put in the hard yards to actually get good at cryptography, who is content with hugely flawed crypto — well, they shouldn't be in crypto in the first place. And those unable to take constructive criticism, I don't know if they should be in real life.

barrkel 8y ago

I think explaining why the crypto usage is wrong is useful, where a straight-up admonishment that someone is doing it wrong isn't. The principle here is explained, at least partially: if you don't use a random IV for every message, you're not secure. So if the API you're using doesn't let you specify the IV, or doesn't default to a random IV that leaves you with undecipherable blocks if you don't fetch its assigned value, you know it's wrong. It's good info.

Waterluvian 8y ago

Cryptography is like civil engineering or surgery. If you're going to do it in production, you need to do it right. I think it's akin to a family physician saying, "this is best left to the surgeons." Don't be fooled that just because you can write code, you can do crypto. But also, you can learn and you can also completely mess around in a safe, non-production environment. Maybe my analogy is a bit weak.

nicoburns 8y ago
I think your analogy is pretty spot on. Cryptography is an additional skill on top of general programming, and it's a difficult one to master. And if you haven't mastered it, then you shouldn't be trying to do it in important situations (assuming there is an alternative).
andy_ppp 8y ago
I disagree, cryptography is like any programming; make sure it’s correct with tests, peer review and validation and check the warnings (this warning should be an error). The fact that a small example gets this badly wrong and the API allows this is probably down to the ecosystem, not down to only cryptographers being “allowed” to used crypto. The surgery idea is wrong; surgery is the implementation of the encryption which no one is advocating - this is more like a pharmacist giving you the wrong pills and you not reading the instructions/warnings before taking them.

tlrobinson 8y ago

> most of us will at some point say, as a result of comments like this, "I'm not a cryptographer, I cannot do this correctly... so fuck trying." I'd argue that in most cases not using crypto is better than using subtly broken crypto. At least users aren't deluded into thinking it's secure, and can take that into consideration when using (or not using) the system.

zapzupnz 8y ago

> "I'm not a cryptographer, I cannot do this correctly... so fuck trying." Whoever says this, whoever doesn't put in the hard yards to actually get good at cryptography, who is content with hugely flawed crypto — well, they shouldn't be in crypto in the first place. And those unable to take constructive criticism, I don't know if they should be in real life.