This argument is essentially 'breakers versus builders'. Breakers have the upper hand here, breaking is a lot easier than building and criticizing is easier than creating. So people who don't create and in general fulfil a role which consists of merely trying to destroy that which others created have an inherent advantage: they need to succeed only once in order to prove their perceived superiority over the creators.
Crypto is complex enough that more people will land in the destructive camp, it is by far the simpler approach to fame and riches.
But that does not mean that a 'breaker' can automatically move to 'builder' status, testimony to that is the number of people that we think are capable of constructing solid cryptographic systems. Colin is one of the people that has definitely achieved 'builder' status, he's not scared to publish his work and has made meaningful advances in the field.
If you feel like, you too can be famous, analyse tarsnap and see if you can find a bug, Colin will be happy to advance your stature, see:
Meanwhile, take Colins advice if you ever want to advance from 'breaker' to 'builder', any idiot can break a window, it takes a lot of expertise to make a flat piece of glass and to set it properly, far more than breaking a window does.
It drives me fucking bananas when people compare "breaking" to "criticizing" and "building" to "creating". Tell that to Don Coppersmith or Daniel Bleichenbacher.
Anybody can create a block cipher. Anybody can create a new encrypted transport. It's far easier to cough up a crappy new design than it is to break even a mediocre one.
But, more importantly, "breaking" a cryptosystem isn't "destructive". It's the most productive thing you can do to crypto. You can't prove a negative. All you can do is spot the designs we can know we shouldn't be using.
"Any idiot can break a window". Sheesh. Have you ever coded a crypto attack? Would you like me to send you a model problem, Jacques?
I don't think Coppersmith is a very good example here. The dude has had his finger in everything, including building DES, MARS, SEAL, Scream, the shrinking generator, asymptotically fast matrix multiplication, etc.
Coppersmith always comes into my head because of that thing Schneier wrote about him being the world's cleverest cryptanalyst in _Applied Cryptography_. But you're obviously right.
So, it's ok for you to suggest I start with crypto challenges but it's 'nasty' for me to suggest you start making stuff instead of breaking stuff?
You simply love laying in to me every chance you get, from questioning my 'credentials' (for the record, I did the NIBE course on the subject matter in that particular thread, but I really don't see what you were trying to achieve with that) and then, in a perfect passive aggressive move you claim in the same line when challenged about your behaviour that you 'like me', and that's not the first time that happened either.
If you can't take it, don't give it, and if you don't like me or feel like bullying me then at least be clear about it.
I'm fine with you being annoying but precise about your subject matter but your personal attacks are getting a bit much lately.
Yes, what I said was OK, and what you said wasn't. Among other problems, your comments were devoid of insight and deliberately mean-spirited. They targeted me, and not my argument. And, again: any idiot can break a window? Again: tell that to Johan Håstad, or Serge Vaudenay.
Good point. I clarified the comment you're replying to; I added the words "And, again:".
If you think there's some personal problem between us, you should know that I'm pretty easy to get ahold of; my contact information is in my profile. You might find that I'm a lot easier to argue with when I don't feel like I have to stick up for my whole profession in public.
You've yet to reply to a single email I ever sent you, or more precisely, I have yet to receive any answers. I'll dig up older emails sent to you tomorrow at the office and we'll see if my mail reaches you at all.
I'm sorry. I really can't imagine receiving mail from you and not replying to it, but I get a _lot_ of mail and am not always great at replying. So, I'm sure you're right. Suffice it to say that I'll be on the lookout for anything else you send.
Crypto is complex enough that more people will land in the destructive camp, it is by far the simpler approach to fame and riches.
But that does not mean that a 'breaker' can automatically move to 'builder' status, testimony to that is the number of people that we think are capable of constructing solid cryptographic systems. Colin is one of the people that has definitely achieved 'builder' status, he's not scared to publish his work and has made meaningful advances in the field.
If you feel like, you too can be famous, analyse tarsnap and see if you can find a bug, Colin will be happy to advance your stature, see:
http://www.tarsnap.com/bounty-winners.html
Meanwhile, take Colins advice if you ever want to advance from 'breaker' to 'builder', any idiot can break a window, it takes a lot of expertise to make a flat piece of glass and to set it properly, far more than breaking a window does.