[liberationtech] Rich's post on the importance of openness in crypto tech [Subject Was: Cryptography super-group creates]

[Jim Fruchterman]

I want to second Nadim's comment.  This is not only terrific, but sums up really important knowledge that often seems to be in short supply.  

Please post it, so we can point more people to it.  

Jim

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:44:03 -0500
From: Nadim Kobeissi <nadim at nadim.cc>
To: liberationtech <liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu>
Cc: liberationtech <liberationtech at mailman.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Cryptography super-group creates
	unbreakable	encryption
Message-ID:
	<CAOZ60qBTaW2vX3EcdMZL2cphNYaskLWX6rM7-vBFsV69H54rmQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Rich,
That was the best email I have ever read on this mailing list.
Congratulations and thank you. Please post this as a blog post somewhere.


NK


On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 01:35:53PM -0800, Adam Fisk wrote:
> > At the risk of getting swept up in this by consciously saying something
> > unpopular, I want to put my shoulder against the wheel of the "open
> source
> > process produces more secure software" machine. [snip]
>
> I've been thinking about your (excellent) comments for several weeks now.
> And I'm going to argue that open source doesn't necessarily produce more
> secure software, but it's a prerequisite for any credible attempt.  And
> that in this particular case, there's just no substitute for it.
>
> But before I get started, let me pointed out that I'm very much *not*
> arguing that the contrapositive is true, that "open source == chewy
> goodness" automatically.  We've all seen open source code that was junk.
> Lots of it.  We've all probably written some, too; I know I have.

SNIP