Subject: Re: FUD about CGD and GBDE
To: ALeine <aleine@austrosearch.net>
From: Charles M. Hannum <abuse@spamalicious.com>
List: tech-security
Date: 03/04/2005 22:58:56
```On Friday 04 March 2005 02:29, ALeine wrote:
> > To wit:
> >
> > On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:43, ALeine wrote:
> > > At any time half of all the people are wrong about something,
> > > it's only a matter of time when your time will come to be in the
> > > wrong half or rather the right half to be wrong.
> >
> > That's a false dichotomy.  There are many subjects on which the
> > vast majority of people agree (such, as, I'll wager, the roundness
> > of the Earth).
>
> Have you ever heard of statistical probability distribution and the
> logical principle of bivalence (tertium non datur)?

The principle of bivalence merely states that every proposition is either true
or false.  "Tertium non datur" is the law of the excluded middle, which is
not the same.  Furthermore, neither one says anything about half the
population falling on one side or the other; you're either making that up or
confusing it with something else.

I refer you to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivalent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

> > It is being given a chance.  "Giving it a chance" does not mean
> > "stepping back and ignoring it until someone publishes an exploit."
>
> Giving it a chance does not mean spreading FUD about it and shouting
> around "It's new, it must be bad! I have not even read the papers or
> looked at the code myself, but I will criticize it because I like
> NetBSD better!"

And, in fact, I have not done that, so you're constructing a strawman.

> > At least one weakness  has been identified -- namely, using a weaker
> > encryption mode for the key-key blocks can reduce the strength of
> > the entire system. Or to put it metaphorically, "an algorithm is only
> > as strong as its weakest link."
>
> You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Hey, you're the one who argued that it's 2^384 to break.  Even PHK's own paper
on GBDE puts the effort to break it at 2^129.  Who is it that hasn't read the
paper?

http://phk.freebsd.dk/pubs/bsdcon-03.gbde.paper.pdf

> > That's purely false. There are several other disk encryption
> > systems around.
>
> You're right, IIRC PKZIP v1.10 had DES encryption back in 1990, someone
> should have told PHK! :-P Please, get a clue, read PHK's papers.

And yet more nonsense.  PKZIP isn't even a disk encryption system.  And you
know very well that CGD and Loop-AES both predate GBDE.  Claiming that there
is "nothing like it" is objectively false.

Now, if you'd care to stop making ad hominem attacks, perhaps there can be
some useful discussion.
```