On 2014-04-09, [email protected] wrote:
This is nonsense, right?
At least it reads as Sokal v2.0. Though in this case both Physical Review and the University of Lancaster would for once seem to be in on the joke.
Be as it may, there's no chance I'd throw the day or two it'd require into actually debugging that stuff. Rather clearly the authors can write Queen's proper, so once they chose not to do so, they made it damn sure even any extant idea of theirs wasn't supposed to be understood.
Thus, fuck that shit; you're supposed to know better as part of the etiquette of (the) science (of security) in any case. Not to mention the fact that at most they just reinvented the idea of a symmetric cipher in a nonstandard and difficult to implement/understand/analyze form, or in the utmost, nary something not better handled by plain-'ol Diffie-Hellman. Who cares?
-- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - [email protected], http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
