On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Matthew Green <matthewdgr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I think that Jack said most of what I would. The incentives all point in > the wrong direction. > While this is all true, it's also why manufacturers who want persuasive analysis of their products hire consulting vendors with a brand and track record strong enough that the end consumer can plausibly believe that their reputational risk outweighs the manufacturer's desire for a good report. Cryptography Research is such a vendor. It's reasonable to take a manufacturer-funded report with a grain of salt, but when consuming any information, you also have to worry about issues like incompetence and less-visible incentives that tilt the comprehension or presentation of facts. I think taking this report as presumed correct is good enough for most users to rely upon, but if I was a high-value user with a comparable budget, I'd consider further investigation. - Tim
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
