XPost: alt.privacy.anon-server, sci.crypt   
   From: peter@tsto.co.uk   
      
   On 18/02/2025 08:06, Yamn3 Remailer wrote:   
   > Gabx <00000@zero.null> wrote:   
   >> Nomen Nescio wrote:   
   >>> Are you just trying to spread FUD in order to support half-baked   
   >>> experimental toys, or are there any clear indications that conventional   
   >>> encryption is broken, all remailers are compromized and Chaum mixes are   
   >>> a flawed concept?  So which proven alternatives would you recommend?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I have run a remailer   
      
   What sort?   
      
      
   out of my own pocket for many years, with my own funds. I don’t think   
   it’s the time to explain to YOU how much I care about APA-S, how much   
   this is not a FUD post, how much i don't depend on shit tools like   
   telegram or whatsapp or what I want to propose as an alternative, neither.   
   >>   
   >> I have seen the evolution of APA-S and if I say this is because if in the   
   past this approach worked, now , with a lot of humility I think it’s no   
   longer the case.   
   >>   
   >> As I see it you try to throw gasoline on a fire that does not exist, it’s   
   only in your head.   
   >>   
   >> Get a life   
   >>   
   >> Gabx   
   >   
   > Touching though vacuous.   
   >   
   > I wonder why you, driven by such dystopic fantasies of inescapable total   
   > surveillance by omnipotent global players, instead of getting a life,   
   > are still actively engaged in this in your view absolutely irrelevant   
   > group of hopelessly ignorant lost souls.   
      
   Well, naming no names, there are a few about ...   
      
   Looking at this thread, I'm unsure what APA-S actually is? I know of the   
   affine-power-affine S-box, typically used as a replacement for the AES   
   s-box, but is there something else? From context it isn't clear.   
      
   Incidentally, I wouldn't trust the affine-power-affine S-box any more   
   than I would the AES s-box - probably less, as it hasn't had as much   
   analysis. What did Schneier say? Ah, here 'tis:   
      
   "Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can   
   create an algorithm that he himself can't break. It's not even hard.   
   What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can break, even   
   after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that is to subject   
   the algorithm to years of analysis by the best cryptographers around."   
      
   Of course he is wrong about years of analysis proving anything,   
   especially as the creator who wants to create a cipher which he alone   
   can break as he has the advantage of design obscurity - but it does help.   
      
      
      
   As to idea that the PTB tweaked AES so they could read it, well maybe.   
   That would be in (part of) their remit, they have tried similar things   
   in the past, and they would love to do it.   
      
   But I don't think they did or could have, except maybe some of the   
   tweaks on AES-256. The real spooks are looking at Soviet and Chinese   
   (and probably Iranian etc) ciphers, the peepers have their place but the   
   PTB also have a responsibility to secure domestic ciphers against furriners.   
      
   Just my 2p.   
      
   Peter Fairbrother   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)