Re: Is the NSA really competent?

[jamiel@sybase.com (Jamie Lawrence)]

At  8:59 AM 06/27/94 -0700, catalyst-remailer@netcom.com wrote:

>I think that this reply betrays a serious lack of reading competence.  The
>breakthroughs cited were the most important  breakthroughs in the 
>science of cryptography, period.  There are no branches of mathematics
>called "military" and "commercial".  The techniques have both

There is no *inherent* branch split, just as there is no
inherent split in knowledge of, say, what is in my pocket
right now. If I choose to tell you, we both know. If not...
and I have a lot more time devoted to 'researching' this
question than you. See my point? You can't measure thier
competence on crypto based on what they let you see. And if
it is true that they really don't know shit about it, then
so much the better for paranoid nutcases like me and you that
assumed they were a much more formidable foe, right? :)

>Thus they can claim to "contribute to American competitiveness" by
>releasing Skipjack, an algorithm for which there is _not even
>any evidence that it is stronger than DES_, much less state of

Just curious, what is your reference for asserting it is similar
to DES?

>Let's face it, our awe of NSA stems entirely from their budget
>and their ability to stamps their incompetence top secret.  

Yep. The NSA is a beaurocracy like any other. Probably has more than
a fair share of imcompetence and waste. On the other hand, with a
room full of connection machines, odds are they were brute forcing
DES long before most other folks on the block. Add in a huge R&D budget
and a few hundred mathematicians and odds are you are gonna find
something neat now and then...

-j