On 01/09/2014 05:15 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM, John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: >> On 1/9/2014 1:27 PM, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote: >>> I think everyone should assume the entire ecosystem is compromised and >>> shouldn't trust anything. Code should be reviewed and bugs/weaknesses >>> removed IMMEDIATELY. The problem is obviously not everyone is a >>> programmer and not everyone will have the knowledge to understand how to >>> fix/improve the security issues. Of course, some software is still >>> good, but who's going to verify that and when? If you don't use free >>> software, you're a goner because now you have no ability whatsoever to >>> audit the code! >> I've programmed for 40 years, and I don't understand encryption >> algorithms nor can I evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. I know >> very few programmers who can. None personally, in fact. > I always just assumed that blowfish was good precisely because it > wasn't the one that was recommended/promoted by the groups likely to > be compromised. But, I try to stay out of politics so I don't worry > much about keeping secrets anyway. Bruce's twofish was better; it was his AES submission.