[109371] in Cypherpunks
Simplicity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bill payne)
Sun Mar 21 21:53:57 1999
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:41:03 -0700
From: bill payne <billp@nmol.com>
To: jy@jya.com, armoral@flash.net, cypherpunks@algebra.com,
mitnick@paranoid.org, oshel.david@mcleod.net, aucrypto@suburbia.net,
junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu, gbroiles@netbox.com,
cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
CC: john gilmore <gnu@toad.com>, j orlin grabbe <kalliste@aci.net>,
cravotta@compuserve.com, softwar@us.net
Reply-To: bill payne <billp@nmol.com>
John Young http://jya.com/crypto.htm
A good encryption article from an engineering standpoint appeared.
http://www.ednmag.com/reg/1999/031899/06df2.cfm
Conclusion says much
One reliable metric is that the more complicated your
implementation, the more vulnerable it is. Aim for simplicity, and the
rest should follow.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/
Cravotta
You may be interested in
http://www.softwar.net/index.html
http://www.softwar.net/comint9.html
http://www.softwar.net/hist.html
and, of course,
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/bw1.htm
or
http://www.zolatimes.com/v2.29/bw1.html
