[127275] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Strength in Complexity?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leichter, Jerry)
Wed Jul 2 11:25:42 2008
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:00:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Leichter, Jerry" <leichter_jerrold@emc.com>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
cc: arshad.noor@strongauth.com, perry@piermont.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com,
dbrown@forsythe.com
In-Reply-To: <E1KDptS-0002Gc-8B@wintermute01.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Peter Gutmann wrote:
| Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:08:18 +1200
| From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
| To: arshad.noor@strongauth.com, perry@piermont.com
| Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com, dbrown@forsythe.com
| Subject: Re: Strength in Complexity?
|
| "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> 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 cynical among us might rephrase that as: "The more complex and
awkward they can make a protocol, the better it will be at generating
future consulting work." :-(
(I don't think that applies to your list, where the root causes have
more to do with design-by-committee and the consequent need to make
everyone happy.)
-- Jerry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
