Timothy C. May wrote:
At 4:44 PM 9/22/96, Dale Thorn wrote:
The basic outline for any products included (and don't forget, just getting included is some sort of endorsement, if you know what I mean) could be a feature/bug listing, using common crypto terminology, and could be followed by side-by-side argument paragraphs from the author and from a reputable review panel. The usefulness of the list would probably depend on: 1. The participation of all those names people like to name-drop on this forum. 2. And/or the quality of the list itself if done without (1.) above. In this latter case, it could still be useful, but the variances in evaluation owing to personal bias would be difficult to overcome.
The Basic Problem (tm) with a "Snake Oil FAQ" is that the very persons most in need of it won't read it. If those who post descriptions of their "Unbreakable Virtual Whammo-Matic Really Complicated Transposition Cipher" have not bothered to read Schneier or other basic texts on ciphers, why would they bother to read a Snake Oil FAQ? This applies to their customers as well.
[additional text deleted] Maybe I shouldn't have tried to (slightly) change the subject. It was my thought that someone could encourage the person(s) who wanted to do a Snake-Oil product list to generalize the list, to be a more scholarly reference, and not just a blacklist. Since the original(?) proposal concerned actual products, and not just techniques which fit into neatly identifiable categories, that might justify a Consumer Reports type of review list for these products.