I disagree. There has been far more failure in SSL/TLS protocols and implementation from complexity in the handshakes than there has been from the basic crypto being broken (which it isn't).
Make a really good basket and put your eggs in it.
>KISS is great and all but it falls apart when you go that one step further and try to oversimplify.
Not in crypto. Complexity is crypto is nothing but fail.
>Anyone can look at a specific problem and provide a *relatively* simple custom crypto solution to solve that one problem. I'm not so sure a world with proliferation of fragmented technologies is necessarily better than a single albeit more complex than you need framework. Perhaps for some it is... I don't know.
After banging my head on this for a decade I've fallen on the side of lots of little, simple solutions for lots of specific security contexts. No one can design a TLS like thing and get it right.
PFS is nice and all. But why the hate for RSA? It's a well understood algorithm.
What the TLS designers need to think about is how to reduce the options to one well understood choice. So the complexity of ciphersuite negoitation, rekeying and all the other absurd complexity can be removed.
Programming isn't an end to itself. Well it can be but, generally we program to do something else - payroll, missile guidance, selling stuff over the internet, etc.
What else do you know? Are you an expert in newt farming? Write an application to automate the tedious aspects of new farming.
Once you have a problem to solve, it becomes attackable. Having to hunting around for the right sized problem suggests you aren't acknowledging the problems you already have.
>Using a tube amp doesn't make you a luddite, and the word isn't capitalized, its not a name. You might want to actually lookup the definition of the word, it doesn't just mean you 'prefer older technolgoies'
But you can get most of the tube amp sound by putting a resistor in serial with the output. High output impedance into a reactive load is what makes the tube noise. Until you start clipping, then it's the inverted top, compared to the flat clipping of transistors that matters.
You can do it digitally, but tubes are nice in and of themselves. My VTB1 agrees.
There's been a competition in the voice coding world to achieve ever lower bit rates for a voice call. Improved quality has never appeared to be a goal. 32Kbps adpcm audio was fine on DECT phones. Indistinguishable from 64Kbps PCM.
So your cell phone might happily download a meg of data for a web page, but insist on 2.4Kbps for a voice call.
But I have a telephone for phone calls. It uses wires over which to communicate and integrates nicely with the conference call application on my laptop.
I've tried it on my cell phone. It sucks and is expensive.
Life critical functions (E.G. ABS braking) don't even get an RTOS. There's one program running on a micro. You don't recurse. You don't loop (except for the while true at the outer). All state is static global variables.
>I would leave off the call feature - big waste of time for me.
Yup. I tend to avoid the whole call thing. People calling my phone is an asynchronous interrupt which doesn't fit with my life and work style. So my phone is on silent all the time.
My phone needs to, in order of decreasing importance 1) Play Ingress. 2) Support decent web browsing 3) Let me send and receive messages in a whitelisted messaging service (E.G. G+ or FB Messenger or GroupMe). 4) Let me send a receive texts to more loosely connected people. 5) Let me send and receive email.
It's a generic Spring Festival event. Maypoles, Whitsun and all sort of other "Oh look - It's sunny" events predate the cold war, haymarket and other modern stuff by hundreds and thousands of years.
As with Easter, Christmas and the solstices, the dates aren't relevant, they just take a ride on existing festivals.
>>"but their logic doesn't hold up in the modern era" >How so?
Invading armies have bigger guns than the population can reasonably keep in their homes. As a means of maintain a well armed militia, protecting the rights of individuals to own pop guns to fight back against tanks and guided missiles is not going to work.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. There has been far more failure in SSL/TLS protocols and implementation from complexity in the handshakes than there has been from the basic crypto being broken (which it isn't).
Make a really good basket and put your eggs in it.
>KISS is great and all but it falls apart when you go that one step further and try to oversimplify.
Not in crypto. Complexity is crypto is nothing but fail.
>Anyone can look at a specific problem and provide a *relatively* simple custom crypto solution to solve that one problem. I'm not so sure a world with proliferation of fragmented technologies is necessarily better than a single albeit more complex than you need framework. Perhaps for some it is... I don't know.
After banging my head on this for a decade I've fallen on the side of lots of little, simple solutions for lots of specific security contexts. No one can design a TLS like thing and get it right.
Static DH is not better than Static RSA
PFS is nice and all. But why the hate for RSA? It's a well understood algorithm.
What the TLS designers need to think about is how to reduce the options to one well understood choice. So the complexity of ciphersuite negoitation, rekeying and all the other absurd complexity can be removed.
TLS will not be fixed. It will be replaced.
You'll get more voice bandwidth with Voip from your phone than with a phone call from your phone.
That would be a tablet. But they don't fit in my pocket.
Programming isn't an end to itself. Well it can be but, generally we program to do something else - payroll, missile guidance, selling stuff over the internet, etc.
What else do you know? Are you an expert in newt farming? Write an application to automate the tedious aspects of new farming.
Once you have a problem to solve, it becomes attackable. Having to hunting around for the right sized problem suggests you aren't acknowledging the problems you already have.
Being a math genius does not imply you know how to teach.
I don't need people telling me to suggest to a car manufacturer that they should include a "beagle board" in an automotive control system.
A good algorithm would be able to optimize the solution using the loopholes and logical fallacies, making you rich.
>Using a tube amp doesn't make you a luddite, and the word isn't capitalized, its not a name. You might want to actually lookup the definition of the word, it doesn't just mean you 'prefer older technolgoies'
But you can get most of the tube amp sound by putting a resistor in serial with the output. High output impedance into a reactive load is what makes the tube noise. Until you start clipping, then it's the inverted top, compared to the flat clipping of transistors that matters.
You can do it digitally, but tubes are nice in and of themselves. My VTB1 agrees.
If the device is too large, it feels like a laptop with a missing keyboard.
There's been a competition in the voice coding world to achieve ever lower bit rates for a voice call. Improved quality has never appeared to be a goal. 32Kbps adpcm audio was fine on DECT phones. Indistinguishable from 64Kbps PCM.
So your cell phone might happily download a meg of data for a web page, but insist on 2.4Kbps for a voice call.
The old school phones with rounder edges would be easier for that.
>you seem to be pretty antisocial.
Very. Never call me.
Shouldn't machine learning experts be able to get their systems to learn the tax code and so replace the accountants?
But I have a telephone for phone calls. It uses wires over which to communicate and integrates nicely with the conference call application on my laptop.
I've tried it on my cell phone. It sucks and is expensive.
Ditto in automotive.
Life critical functions (E.G. ABS braking) don't even get an RTOS. There's one program running on a micro. You don't recurse. You don't loop (except for the while true at the outer). All state is static global variables.
>Hey, you know what 'feature phone' means! Care to share?
Ringtones. For a fee.
>I would leave off the call feature - big waste of time for me.
Yup. I tend to avoid the whole call thing. People calling my phone is an asynchronous interrupt which doesn't fit with my life and work style.
So my phone is on silent all the time.
My phone needs to, in order of decreasing importance
1) Play Ingress.
2) Support decent web browsing
3) Let me send and receive messages in a whitelisted messaging service (E.G. G+ or FB Messenger or GroupMe).
4) Let me send a receive texts to more loosely connected people.
5) Let me send and receive email.
I can live without the voice calls.
What makes a 3D TV "proper"?
I've never seen a maypole in the US either. So they wouldn't have anything to do on May Day.
May day in Britain, Germany and other European countries has been going on for centuries.
May day isn't a soviet holiday, it's originally an American Holiday for American unions.
America isn't the only country to have May day. In fact it's rather late to the party.
It's a generic Spring Festival event. Maypoles, Whitsun and all sort of other "Oh look - It's sunny" events predate the cold war, haymarket and other modern stuff by hundreds and thousands of years.
As with Easter, Christmas and the solstices, the dates aren't relevant, they just take a ride on existing festivals.
>>"but their logic doesn't hold up in the modern era"
>How so?
Invading armies have bigger guns than the population can reasonably keep in their homes. As a means of maintain a well armed militia, protecting the rights of individuals to own pop guns to fight back against tanks and guided missiles is not going to work.
That wasn't so true back in the day.
>Hey, man! Don't Godwin capitalism.
That's what Goebbels said to Hitler in 1933.