2013.01.27 00:50:06 (295317723951529985) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Justin Troutman (@justintroutman)" (295307015339778049):
Proofs can be a useful guide to cryptanalysts, but it's a disaster to prioritize proofs above security as the design goal. @justintroutman
2013.01.26 20:50:26 (295257409667076097) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Justin Troutman (@justintroutman)" (295017575463673856):
The pursuit of such a link encourages designers to add structure. Often the same structure helps attackers! @justintroutman @matthew_d_green
2013.01.26 21:42:25 (295270488794595329) from "Bert Hubert 🇺🇦 (@bert_hu_bert)":
@hashbreaker @justintroutman @matthew_d_green I see how provable security helps the attacker. But what is the alternative? Defense in depth?
2013.01.26 22:00:11 (295274960048504832) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Bert Hubert 🇺🇦 (@bert_hu_bert)" (295270488794595329):
Cryptanalytic attention is by far our best hope for figuring out which crypto is secure. @PowerDNS_Bert @justintroutman @matthew_d_green
2013.01.27 00:07:33 (295307015339778049) from "Justin Troutman (@justintroutman)":
@hashbreaker Do you feel there is any benefit, at all, in showing that if A breaks, then B breaks too?