I'm a cryptographer, ask me anything

I'm a cryptographer, ask me anything.

Other urls found in this thread:

hekatestation.net
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>I'm a cryptographer, ask me anything.

Can you read the hidden meaning in this?

I'm more into computational security models, I don't know much about steganography sorry.

>I'm more into computational security models

More like this, then?

I don't understand your queries. I reply bot.

what are your thoughts on asymmetric cryptography and the reductionist theory of security? With regards to phrasing security requirements in terms of Turing’s complexity theory rather than Shannon’s information theoretic approach?

> (You)
>I don't understand your queries. I reply bot.

I'm sending you crypts.
Are you not a cryptographer?

Do you not crypt?

Information-theoretic security of course offers much stronger guarantees, but it is also much more limited in terms of what you can do. I think the computational/reductionist approach is a totally fine compromise, but personally I find the random oracle model quite sketchy, I'd rather avoid it as much as I can. Oh, and UC security is an evil scam of course.

have you tried the cicadia thing?

lol yeah, lets see how faggot op deals with someone who might actually be a cryptography specialist... are you?

No, what's that?

Your reply is out of sync. Are you typing from a galaxy far away?

You have absolutely no fucking idea whatsoever about what im talking about, do you. As usual OP is indeed a faggot.

That I am random user, unlike this fucking impostor.

What's your opinion on WPA3 and dragonfly?

When you start another one of your retarded I'm a xxxxxx AMA threads do you do any research beforehand to make yourself seem to have even the smallest shred of credibility or do you just wing it?

Yes, I do. Even if you googled your question from a random forum, that made sense, and I repliead in a reasonable way.

No idea. I said I'm a cryptographer, not an engineer.

Not OP, to be fair whenever i've done one late at night bored, I don't lie so I can answer the questions in a genuine manner. Unlike OP it seems.

I do actually have a PhD in cryptography. Serious questions, anyone?

Well, you should do some research then. I asked for an opinion from cryptographic point of view.

What's your penis size?

>I'm a cryptographer, not an engineer.
.

I'm a lumberjack, and I'm OK
I sleep all night and I work all day

Wrong again faggot, unlike you I actually am a cryptographer. Actually my degree was in mathematics, but crypto is a genuinely interesting field with a variety of applications, but I digress. Because you see, unlike you I actually do know what im talking about.

How's about next time you make one of your gay little threads, you think about what you're actually gonna do when you meet someone who's field and career you pretend to be in. Might save you looking like a total fucking retard when they ask you something you clearly can't answer!

No. No you don't. Timestamp pic of your PhD certificate, you can blur the name out if you feel the need to do so.

>I do actually have a PhD in cryptography. Serious questions, anyone?

Do you understand the Zodiac code?

lol dis should be interesting

>Wrong again faggot, unlike you I actually am a cryptographer.

Why don't you two cryptograph each other?
See who's better at it

And I said I have no idea. I have never heard about this KE protocol, and it absolutely impossible to keep track of everything happening in crypto nowadays. A quick search tells me that this paper is not particularly relevant, few citations, scheme of little interest. Did you just pick a random paper from the IACR Eprint archive?

I also have a degree in mathematics. But feel free to think I'm lying.

No, that would leak information, and you would still say that's a fake one.

If you were an actual cryptographer you would have asked me to provide a zero-knowledge proof. Pity.

>Stop LARPing, OP. You don't have to be an engineer to know applications of cryptography. I deal with cryptography in malicious software and hoped to exchange some knowledge.

scheme of little interest? Not relevant: From the abstract:
"Dragony is a password authenticated key exchange protocol that has been submitted to the Internet Engineering Task Force as a candidate standard for general internet use"
SEEMS PRETTY FUCKING RELEVANT TO ME!

You are lying

No, it's because you DONT FUCKING HAVE ONE! Kill yourself.

>You are lying
one of you is
one of you is too.

busted!

Can any one of you decipher whatever the hell this is?

hekatestation.net

>You don't have to be an engineer to know applications of cryptography

Agreed. I'm just saying I don't know that particular applications, and since there is an enormous number of schemes and protocols around, it is likely that if you pick one at random my knowledge about it will be negligible - and this would hold for any cryptographer.

>SEEMS PRETTY FUCKING RELEVANT TO ME!

That's because you are probably not used to read academic papers. See, the publication process is so wicked and twisted that nowadays you have basically to do a load of "marketing" for your paper to be published.

Example: if I find a "potential improvement to the efficiency of ciphertext distinguisher attack from 2^128 to 2^120 for a 4-rounds reduced block cipher FUBAR (unknown scheme proposed by an Indiam master student 2 weeks ago, which has originally 50 rounds)" this would be a ridiculously non-interesting scientific result.

However, what I would do is phrase it like this:

> in this paper we propose a breakthrough attack against the underlying building blocks of FUBAR, a recently proposed encryption scheme which advertises high security, efficiency, and composability properties. FUBAR has been submitted as a candidate standard in many international contests

(this means: India and Svalbardistan)

> Although this paper presents only a preliminary version of the attack not focused on efficiency, the underlying method sheds new light on the vulnerabilities of a vast class of block ciphers, and can therefore be applied to the cryptanalysis of many other widespread encryption schemes.

The only way to assess the real impact of a scientific paper is to look at the citation count. The paper you have linked has only 5 citations since 2013. This means it's probably garbage.

Decrypt this
>last ylyl

I understand. Let's change a topic: what's the best book, in your opinion, to study number theory and number theory applications in modern crypto? In 'Handbook of applied cryptography' there is just one short chapter and the book by Neal Koblitz is a crap.

Uhhh good question. The thing is, the impact of number theory on modern crypto is not as much as it was 20 years ago. So, if you want a good text on number theory I would probably go for the Hardy or the Davenport. For crypto itself I would rather go for the Goldreich.

What's your opinion on the Voynich msc and the Zodiac ciphers? Bullshit or solvable?

Voynich is IMHO bullshit.

You're all faggots