Re:Slack was hacked
by eropple on Friday March 27, 2015 @06:18PM
(#9279403)
Is your reasoning that of an experienced, competent cryptographer? Because mine isn't. I'm not a cryptographer's peer, either, and I'll bet you aren't either. Step one--nobody said step all, but step one--is establishing your bona fides to determine whether it is worth burning cycles on your idea, because proving or disproving cryptography is very hard and very time-consuming. It is a heuristic that, generally speaking, works pretty well.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Slack was hacked
by karl_gluck on Friday March 27, 2015 @11:48PM
(#9280436)
No, his reasoning probably isn't. But without putting words in his mouth, there is this quasi-religious "thou shalt not talk about cryptography" attitude among programmers like crypto is literally voodoo magic. The appeal to experience is an incredibly frustrating part of this. It's like people are willfully ignorant and forcing those of us who may not be experts but also want to have an intelligent discussion to pretend to be idiots along with them.
It's not "thou shalt not talk about cryptography."
It's "cite your sources."
Re:Slack was hacked
by Dylan16807 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @01:08AM
(#9280580)
If you're pointing out a gaping flaw, you don't need a source. If you're suggesting a standard security measure, you don't need a source.
To insist on something novel, yes you want a source.