So the practical reason behind everyone saying "unless you have qualifications, etc, don't do this" is because, even if you make something and say it's just for your learning or a joke or w/e, someone (no joke) *will* use it and then some Fortune 500 will fall over because of your joke code. So, yeah, don't do this - as in, it'd be best to take it down for everyone's sanity.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:25 PM, John Young <j...@pipeline.com> wrote: > At 04:55 PM 1/6/2015, you wrote: > > Yes, that is the received canon of cryptosystems: > > 1.Sarcasm toward unqualified efforts, > > 2. Designing cryptosysystems is *hard*. > > 3. No, that's too mild, it's mindblowingly* hard. > > 4. It doesn't start with code, it strts with mathematical description. > > 5. No, even that is not true, it starts with years of study. > > 6. Denizens of this list have seen a hundred cryptosystems crash and burn. > > 7. Some of them designed by very clever people. > > 8. Designing crytposystems is hard. > > 9. Don't even think of trying it, not unless a fewyears spent studying the > state of the art. > > 10. Sorry to be blunt. > > Not to mention how often thclaims are made despite thier sounding like > alchemy and astrology, cultish, religious, authoritarian, scientistic, > recruitment > for arcane pursuit of unsolvable mysteries, and hardly applicable to the > long > and varied history of cryptology suffused with bizarre claims, subterfuge, > deception, betrayal, treachery, obligatory prevarication, inherent cheating, > diabolical misrepresentation of trustworthiness, venomous accusations > against competitors, unrestrained dupery and duplicity against the unwary, > citizen and royalty alike. > > Nor that mathematics is a modern innovation in cryptology and remains > its weakest element due to inability of its applicators to wed it to code > and hardware without recourse to alchemy and astrology favored by > promoters, sales and PhDs who dream of math as golden key to natsec. > > QODE, QED. > >> Kevin wrote: > I figured I'd start building my own open source encryption >> algorithm: > https://github.com/kjsisco/qode If you feel overwhelmed by the >> sarcasm directed your way, there is a reason for that. Designing >> cryptosystems is *hard*. No, that's too mild. Is *mindblowingly* hard. It >> doesn't start with code. It starts with a mathematical description. No, even >> that is not true: It starts with years and years of study. The denisens of >> this list have seen a hundred cryptosystem crash and burn. Some of them were >> designed by very clever people. Did I mention that designing cryptosystems >> is hard? Don't even think of trying it, not unless you have first spent a >> few years studying the state of the art. Sorry to be so blunt, but I think >> it will save you a whole lot of grief. – Harald >> _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list >> cryptography@randombit.net >> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography </x-flowed> > > > > _______________________________________________ > cryptography mailing list > cryptography@randombit.net > http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
