>is easy to throw around, but where's the evidence?
Your whole post is an act of faith (what can and cannot be brute forced
or cryptanalyzed), and then you ask for evidence ?
Or maybe I am unaware of NSA's practice to publish their achievements in NYT, and use
distributed.net clone for cracking ?
The point of a cypher is to be secure. Ability to encrypt OC192 is not
a substitute.
I cannot provide evidence that brick without support falls to the ground,
but I have seen enough bricks behave this way in the past to make a bet.
Evidence: do you know how many *decades* it took germans to find out that
allies broke Enigma - and then they had hard time believing it. But you
must be so much genetically superior and more intelligent than germans, so
that this can not happen to you ? For similar examples do some reading
yourself.
If Feistel nets continue to be (publicly) unbroken for the next several
decades, that will be a unique event in crypto history.
But if you provide me *one* example of mainstream experts correctly
evaluating contemporary in-use ciphers in the last 500 years (hint: all
broken except OTP), I will concede benevolency of 3-letter agencies.
