Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: An advantage of RSA encryption
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:58:49 +0200
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <55C13599.7010902@t-online.de>
References: <mpimf8$cc7$1@news.albasani.net> <mpj2fj$361$1@news.albasani.net> <mpjc91$jt2$1@news.albasani.net> <mplkff$vol$1@news.albasani.net> <mplpk5$9n6$1@news.albasani.net> <20150803102300.194@kylheku.com> <mpqc3n$1q6$1@news.albasani.net> <mpqd07$f8r$1@dont-email.me> <mpqden$416$4@news.albasani.net> <20150804082415.66@kylheku.com> <55C11C23.9000503@t-online.de> <mpr811$vgc$2@dont-email.me> <55C12904.9020702@t-online.de> <mpra3k$846$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net ZLY5hKL3tzaY90Z6hpYFBNYTzTWr0rQfvGu433rp3H/9NvAE0MdUcp/oBFbEID2O/4peKT3ome+1Xlg5XysFQDr/HRu0fui54O5f3+Z6CERcNr6LTXXhOCQlZeO70lay
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 21:58:47 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="8oXZAJ2XbD630XU1NBACNtIdWROnUE18lneZ9UcAeE0QI9Tv5q6C3+uouShTPYpzTNzkuTOE0778ETVrD6Fdga+GWf4ZuHL9VZilRgr11LSfDb+58fbXxpyy29cBp6+QaTkXLByTuZa4uJJVw4rcAKYNI6NfTQEm5M3xXpk9WP4="; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
To: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <mpra3k$846$1@dont-email.me>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Csrr4SgltAgBf+bTnkvTJF0oi6c=
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:5577

Am 04.08.2015 um 23:18 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
> On 04/08/15 22:05, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>> Am 04.08.2015 um 22:42 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
>>> On 04/08/15 21:10, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>>> Am 04.08.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Kaz Kylheku:
>>>>> On 2015-08-04, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>> ok. Then please comment on what I wrote in parentheses.
>>>>>
>>>>> (dumb as a brick)
>>>>>
>>>> If you have good arguments, then give them. You are welcome to
>>>> aid Heathfield in his argumentation.
>>>
>>> It's the other way round. I was expanding on Kaz's contribution, not he
>>> on mine. Kaz knows a damn sight more about cryptography than I do.
>>
>> This is not important for the discussion. Important are your
>> objective counterarguments to mine, if any.
>
> I didn't realise you had any arguments. I thought you were asking a
> question. It seems to me that that question has been answered.
>
> You had a follow-up question asking about high quality CSPRNGs. I
> haven't answered that because I don't have sufficient CSPRNG experience
> to contribute what I would consider to be a sufficiently high quality
> response to that question.

You wrote ".....  or one finds a good, reliable CSPRNG that is already
publicly available for one's platform and which has been analysed by
the cryptographic community and found to be fit for purpose."

But an "analysis by the cryptographic community" that one can rely on
can in my conviction only be the algorithm of the CSPRNG, e.g. what one
reads in HAC. Software in closed-source is not trustworthy. Software in
open-source has risks of the genre of Heartbleed. So one has IMHO to
take one's own responsibility to implement oneself an algorithm
from e.g. HAC. Is that clear?

If you would prefer to let the discussion to be further carred out by
Kylheku and me alone, that's certainly ok. However, his last post
contained nothing of objective arguments, unfortunately.

M. K. Shen