3 ms·

On the other hand, without peer-review your obscure system could be trivially cracked once the government has an interest in it.

• ISL 13y ago
  As a professional scientist: One should be very careful about using peer review as a mark of quality. It's not necessary nor sufficient.
  • pyre 13y ago
    It's not bullet-proof, but if you are the only person evaluating the system, then you've only protected it against the attacks that you can think up, and not against the attacks the other people can think up.
• yk 13y ago
  Not advocating non standard crypto, but if the system is at least somewhat good ( that is, not susceptible to automatic attacks), it would keep a actual human busy. And you don't loose security, assuming that the cyphertext of the obscure system is again encrypted by a well established cypher.
  • pyre 13y ago
    It's important to note that even using well-tested, hardened crypto-primitives, you can still design an insecure system.
    • yk 13y ago
      Absolutely. ( This will serve as a reminder, that one should even be careful talking about crypto. ;)