3 ms·
And I say it's shamanism, not science. It's very hard to prove something can't be done. Rather, "as of now, we know no way to do X". Time after time flaws are f
by b0rsuk 13y ago
And I say it's shamanism, not science. It's very hard to prove something can't be done. Rather, "as of now, we know no way to do X". Time after time flaws are found in RSA, SSL, PGP. New number properties are constantly discovered. That's why it is - at least partially - security through obscurity.
The Pythagorean theorem doesn't get outdated ! Cryptography does.
- TeMPOraL 13y agoWell, science part of crypto is Just Maths. It is on par with Pythagorean theorem. The problems occur mostly on the engineering side of the equation.
- b0rsuk 13y agoFair enough. But it's incompatible with the claim made in the article - that cryptography is science and not engineering. It can be both. In fact, it's likely that it will split to two disciplines in future, much like probability and statistics. Cryptography reminds me of cellular automata in that both are made up concepts that you can have lots of fun with, if you enjoy that kind of thing. I prefer CA because of its visual nature.
- tptacek 13y agoPresumably, the algorithms and constructions in cryptography that have been proven by mathematicians also won't "get outdated".
- JoachimSchipper 13y agoNeither RSA, nor SSL, nor PGP is a 2010's cryptosystem. (Also, PGP works fine and RSA is at least weakening in a gradual and predictable fashion.)