3 ms·

An expert on trees: This oak is probably diseased. It has discolorations on some of the leaves and the bark is much looser than normal. I think it shou

An expert on trees: This oak is probably diseased. It has discolorations on some of the leaves and the bark is much looser than normal. I think it should be thoroughly investigated or perhaps just cut it down to be safe. kayoone, knowing nothing of trees: "some strong claims in there for not really proving that the tree is indeed diseased."

kayoone 13y ago
And you obviously know that i know nothing of on the subject?
- skj 13y ago
  With respect, at first glance it seems that way. The burden of proof lies with the claim to security, not the claim of insecurity.
  - tucson 13y ago
    The contest actually puts the burden of proof on the "claim of insecurity" side.
    - forgottenpass 13y ago
      The contest is a stunt that appears to a casual observer to shift the burden of proof because they wrote a long winded "PROVE ME WRONG BRO."
- Confusion 13y ago
  From your comment everyone can immediately surmise that you lack the practical knowledge of using cryptography for real world applications that people like tptacek and moxie have. They are known experts and have been quite clear on the questionable nature of Telegram's choice of cryptographic primitives and their composition. Their objection is not 'this is obviously broken'. Their objection is 'this does not obviously work and there are some red flags'. This blog post merely mirrors that objection. The crucial point is that the past has shown that no proof of brokenness is required. In cryptography, if it doesn't obviously work, it is probably broken, because it is incredibly hard to get right and because an incredible amount of money and effort is available to find the tiniest crack. You are dealing with criminals and governments who have deep pockets. Either you prove it works or you assume it doesn't work. The proof is missing.
- phaus 13y ago
  I think that most people realized this upon reading your other comment. You are either entirely unfamiliar with cryptography or you misunderstand a great deal of what you think you do know.

kayoone 13y ago

And you obviously know that i know nothing of on the subject?

skj 13y ago
With respect, at first glance it seems that way. The burden of proof lies with the claim to security, not the claim of insecurity.
- tucson 13y ago
  The contest actually puts the burden of proof on the "claim of insecurity" side.
  - forgottenpass 13y ago
    The contest is a stunt that appears to a casual observer to shift the burden of proof because they wrote a long winded "PROVE ME WRONG BRO."
Confusion 13y ago
From your comment everyone can immediately surmise that you lack the practical knowledge of using cryptography for real world applications that people like tptacek and moxie have. They are known experts and have been quite clear on the questionable nature of Telegram's choice of cryptographic primitives and their composition. Their objection is not 'this is obviously broken'. Their objection is 'this does not obviously work and there are some red flags'. This blog post merely mirrors that objection. The crucial point is that the past has shown that no proof of brokenness is required. In cryptography, if it doesn't obviously work, it is probably broken, because it is incredibly hard to get right and because an incredible amount of money and effort is available to find the tiniest crack. You are dealing with criminals and governments who have deep pockets. Either you prove it works or you assume it doesn't work. The proof is missing.
phaus 13y ago
I think that most people realized this upon reading your other comment. You are either entirely unfamiliar with cryptography or you misunderstand a great deal of what you think you do know.