> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:35:42 -0700
> From: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Provably secure" is a word applicable to cyphers, not protocols. To use
> it in reference to a protocol is nonsense gibberish.
No, it is just more difficult to establish of protocols than of
primitives bec
Actually, no, you can apply "provably secure" to a protocol as well.
Granted, it is usually applied to cryptographic protocols, but that
is still a protocol, not a cryptosystem. Indeed, one could attempt
to apply "provably secre" techniques to protocols such as Kerberos,
or, in the case of the or
--
James A. Donald:
> > I do not understand what is meant by "provably secure"]
At 09:57 AM 7/28/2000 -0400, Rich Salz wrote
> An unfortunate admission for a would-be cryptographer.
It should have been obvious from the context that you deleted that I was
criticizing the use of the word t
> I do not understand what is meant by "provably secure".
An unfortunate admission for a would-be cryptographer. For what it's
worth, this is a mark against your credibility and might mean that fewer
real crypto types will look at your work. (And no, I don't qualify as a
crypto type.)
/
