Huh? "Prefer symmetric cryptography over public-key cryptography." WTF? theguardian.com/world/2013/s…
Sep 6, 2013 · 5:39 AM UTC
7
4
1
@stilkov if you are worried that trusted keys/providers have been exploited. Yes.
2
1
@gregyoung I don't have any doubts that's true. I was concerned about PGP, which I still currently consider secure
@stilkov the reason is complicated - but very short: public-key systems are currently _very_ brittle.
1
@olabini Thanks – you’re referring to the stuff Schneier explains here? schneier.com/blog/archives/2… Or something else?
@koehntopp So you believe he's advocating external (non-networked) symmetric key generation and exchange? One time pads?
@koehntopp Still don't see how this is an argument against asymmetric crypto
1
@koehntopp Am not enough of a crypto person to understand this, probably. Link to more details?
@stilkov but here, I think, he just mixed up the two concepts.
1
@stilkov Background (quantum computer): schneier.com/blog/archives/2…
1
@stralauinBerlin The quantum option seems the least likely one, though