On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:05:14PM +0200, rysiek wrote: > Dnia środa, 8 października 2014 07:59:36 John Young pisze: > > http://sphincs.cr.yp.to/ > > > > Special note to law-enforcement agents: The word "state" is > > a technical term in cryptography. Typical hash-based signature > > schemes need to record information, called "state", after every > > signature. Google's Adam Langley refers to this as a "huge > > foot-cannon" from a security perspective. By saying "eliminate > > the state" we are advocating a security improvement, namely > > adopting signature schemes that do not need to record information > > after every signature. We are not talking about eliminating other > > types of states. We love most states, especially yours! Also, > > "hash" is another technical term and has nothing to do with cannabis. > > This... has to be some elaborate joke. > > -- > Pozdr > rysiek
djb is getting better at trolling ;) from TFA: "2^128 security even against attackers equipped with quantum computers". wouldn't bet much money on this. first, it is not known if P=NP (someone wrongly claimed in this case "everyone will be composer". certainly sufficiently high degree algorithm won't help at all). second, it is not known even if P ≠ NP, can a sufficiently powerful quantum computer solve SAT efficiently? -- if the answer is ``yes'' djb & co fail. not to mention that if djb is using "qmail + csh", "Shock-See-Shell" will screw him beyond crypto. -- cheers
