[Info-vax] What to do with my VAX.....

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2020-11-12 kl. 09:59, skrev Dave Froble:
> On 11/11/2020 10:47 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/11/2020 8:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2020 6:56 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
>>>> seasoned_geek <roland at logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
>>>>> ALL
>>>>> ENCRYPTION is security by obscurity. Period.
>>>>
>>>> Thus proving nicely that you know _absolutely_ nothing about encryption.
>>>> You imight want to read up on Kerckhoff's principle for starters.
>>>
>>> Well, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that statement.
>>>
>>> Isn't not knowing a solution a form of obscurity?  Otherwise, if one
>>> knows the key, then there is no security, right?  So not knowing the
>>> key is sort of "security by obscurity"?
>>>
>>> There have been multiple instances in the past of codes being broken
>>> and harmful affects because of that.  The Japanese code in WWII?
>>>
>>> What is a "secret key", other than "unknown data"?  Can such a key be
>>> guessed?  Unlikely.  But possible.
>>
>> Security by obscurity has a very specific meaning.
> 
> That's kind of narrow thinking, isn't it?
> 
>> It is when the security depends on the algorithm being kept secret.
>>
>> This is generally considered bad.
>>
>> And none of the standard algorithms today use it.
>>
>> You can open any text book on encryption and see the algorithms
>> for AES, RSA etc. and they are still prohibitively difficult
>> to crack.
>>
>> AES 256 bit has a 256 bit key. That is 2 power 256 possible keys.
>> That is a big number.
> 
> I agree with all that, but, the statement seems to still apply, at least to 
> me.  If one doesn't know how to access, then, it is obscure, or by the 
> statement, unknown, right?
> 
> 

That is only you (as usual).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

"System security should not depend on the secrecy of the implementation
or its components."

What is "obscured" it the protection methods, not the secured object
as such.