The author of the paper follows this quote with a rant against the referees for scientific journals and conferences. Perhaps I should have quoted that. There mu

The author of the paper follows this quote with a rant against the referees for scientific journals and conferences. Perhaps I should have quoted that. There must be a reason why Lamport, Knuth, etc. don't write in this style. But, their work is considered significant and historical. It makes me suspect that this is either not significant (why isn't this making headlines like Heartbleed?) or isn't novel, or isn't practical (really), or some combination of the above. If these claims were as significant as claimed, then they would certainly be greeted as such. Further, from the IACR website: Papers have been placed here by the authors and did not undergo any refereeing process other than verifying that the work seems to be within the scope of cryptology and meets some minimal acceptance criteria and publishing conditions. Finally, a quick perusal of Google scholar makes their work look at least somewhat non-unique, but again, I am not sure. Let me repeat, it is just their style which set off a small alarm bell.