4 ms·
Schneier's Law
- aristus 16y agoThis is just a special case of modus ponens, right? If I can't break my code, then my code is secure. I can't break my code. Therefore my code is secure.
- idle_processor 16y agoIt's a fallacy, rather than a special case, because causality isn't commutative. 1. "If my code is secure, then I can't break it. (P → Q) 2. "If I can't break my code, then it is secure." (Q → P) Concluding 2 from premise 1 falsely assumes (P → Q) → (Q → P). For more info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
- bdhe 16y agoReminds me of an Einstein quote (paraphrased): "You cannot expect to find a solution to a problem with the same knowledge that led you to the problem". Similarly, when designing cryptosystems, almost to a tautology, the person designing/implementing the cryptosystem cannot hope to cryptanalyze it himself/herself (otherwise they would have designed it better in the first place).