Hey I love (and defend) crypto but ultimately it relies on (sometimes standard) assumptions like the one-way hardness of discrete logarithms. Symmetric systems hardly have underlying information theoretic garuntees - usually symmetric constructs are based on reductions under random oracle models (which have has its own methodological problems). Furthermore implementations are hardly the same as mathematical constructs, which gives rise to side channels.

These are not controversial views - they are common knowledge among cryptographers.

It is thus an injustice to knock Elephant on 'provability' grounds. The papers for Elephant (and Lion before it) follow standards for peer reviewed work in cryptography.

It is a shame you will not reply to any of the examples in the remainder of the comment.

But other HN readers will see them.

Tiniest violin playing for the loss of another pointless discussion about NSAKEY.

https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9909.html

Maybe you could reply to the others. Agreed NSAKEY is old news.

NSAKEY isn't "old news". It's a bullshit conspiracy theory. It doesn't even make sense as news.

I understand how you feel about NSAKEY.

Maybe you could reply to the others.

And the others? Do I get an ORCHESTRA?

The crypto bit is perfectly reasonable in this context as Elephant meets the standards for crypto publication in this regard. You excuse leaks water.

Where you can no longer reasonably hold your position is where you got off the train.