Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Let's see, I replied to someone's comment with a valid criticism. I just read the entirety of Zed's piece and, lo and behold, my argument against the comment still stands. (Whether or not Zed's protocol still stands is an open question.) Meanwhile, you've been attacking a strawman the whole time.

Now you're trying to personally attack me. I'm not sure what your problem is or what you're trying to prove, but I am a practitioner.

See here:

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-85B/SP800-85b... [PDF]

or here:

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-83/SP800-83.p... [PDF]

or here:

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips201-1/FIPS-201-1-... [PDF]

(You won't find my name in that last document, as authors and supporting researchers are not listed on FIPS.)

I'm not going to ask about your credentials because, frankly, they don't interest me. You've jumped the shark and I'm done responding after this. Don't make this thing personal; you've got a problem with my comment, do us all a favor and keep it there. You trying to start a pissing match with me is boring for everyone and ultimately wastes both of our time. Chill.




You're right. I'm infinitely more irritated at the mentality conveyed by Shaw's document, that "security" is a combination of using the most "advanced" crypto constructions and using parsing tools to avoid superficial overflows than I am at you for arguing with people about a post you didn't bother to read.

For that, I apologize.


All good, man.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: