[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Gutmann) writes: > "Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>No. In fact, it is about as far from the truth as I've ever seen. No real >>expert would choose to deliberately make a protocol more complicated. > > IPsec. Anything to do with PKI. XMLdsig. Gimme a few minutes and I can > provide a list as long as your arm. Protocol designers *love* complexity. > The more complex and awkward they can make a protocol, the better it has to > be.
The problem, Peter, is that people who don't know you may mistake your sarcasm for agreement with misconception in the article Arshad quoted. Oh, and by the way, you missed half a dozen failed secure mail protocols, SET (the Wikipedia article for SET really needs to be changed from present to past tense), and 20 other easy examples. It is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it? The point is not that fools (often including us) haven't built monstrous ziggurats that failed. The point is that no one rational should *SEEK* to make a protocol into monstrous ziggurat on the basis that this will improve security, and don't pretend you don't agree, because most of us know you better than that. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
