Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:53:49 +0000 From: "Charles M. Hannum" <abuse@spamalicious.com> To: "ALeine" <aleine@austrosearch.net> Cc: ticso@cicely.de Subject: Re: FUD about CGD and GBDE Message-ID: <200503032253.49819.abuse@spamalicious.com> In-Reply-To: <200503030243.j232hegV089625@marlena.vvi.at> References: <200503030243.j232hegV089625@marlena.vvi.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm not going to defend what Thor said, nor do I even think it's worth discussing as it largely amounts to an "appeal to privileged knowledge." However, this is some extremely sloppy thinking in your writing. To wit: On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:43, ALeine wrote: > At any time half of all the people are wrong about something, it's > only a matter of time when your time will come to be in the wrong > half or rather the right half to be wrong. That's a false dichotomy. There are many subjects on which the vast majority of people agree (such, as, I'll wager, the roundness of the Earth). > Just because there is a tendency for new cryptographic systems to > be broken does not mean this applies to GBDE, otherwise anything > new would be considered wrong and we might as well stop even trying > to innovate. Give GBDE a chance. It is being given a chance. "Giving it a chance" does not mean "stepping back and ignoring it until someone publishes an exploit." At least one weakness has been identified -- namely, using a weaker encryption mode for the key-key blocks can reduce the strength of the entire system. Or to put it metaphorically, "an algorithm is only as strong as its weakest link." > GBDE is not replacing anything because there was nothing like it to > replace in the first place. That's purely false. There are several other disk encryption systems around.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200503032253.49819.abuse>