Talk:Cryptosystem

Naming: "Cryptosystem" vs "Crypto system"

"crypto-system" or "cryptosystem" instead of "crypto system"? Sorry to mention alternative spellings on a crypt* article... ;-) Matt 20:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mostly what I see, and what I use in my own stuff is crypto system. That's why I chose it for this. If a redirection page is needed, well, I guess we should add one. As for being sorry about alternative spellings, check out talk:cryptography for the cypher vs cipher controversy. ww 18:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Coming back to this again, I think "cryptosystem" is the correct spelling in formal writing. Some evidence: a Google test reveals 10 times more hits for "cryptosystem" than "crypto system"; and HAC and Schneier's AC both use "cryptosystem", as does Ross Anderson's "Why cryptosystems fail" — Matt 10:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, As I suggested in re cipher v cypher above, this is a bit of teapot tempest. With the balance being toward cryptosystem in others usage, I don't suppose that I have much room to insist on anything else.

Since there are multiple references to crypto system here and there, a redirect page will be needed. Satisfactory? ww 13:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sorry to go on about spelling (pedantic nit-picking is something I try and avoid, sorry, try to avoid...) My excuse is that I think there is a real danger of things looking slightly amateurish, just because of the spelling. e.g., recently I saw a title of a paper with the spelling "cryptoanalysis" rather than the more common "cryptanalysis". Probably both are OK historically, I'm not sure, but I deduced immediately that the authors weren't primarily cryptographers (which was true). w.r.t. cipher vs cypher, I'm a lot happier with both spellings than I was previously, but first a quick quote from the WP Manual of Style:

>>> * Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country. A reference to "the American labour movement" (with a U) or to "Anglicization" (with a Z) may be jarring. However, a reference to "the American labour movement" would be okay on New Labour. <<<

Thinking along these lines, along with noting that very recently the academic world has standardised on "cipher", I would suggest that "Rijndael is a block cypher" is jarring for a similar reason, even though "the Enigma cypher" is OK. — Matt 14:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, I give up on the ':' after a certain point. It seems my limit is 4. Anyway, we use the same gloriously absurd language in which my father's middle name was actually pronounced kuhnicht once upon Chaucer's time or perhaps a little before. And still spelled that way! And remember you can spell an aquatic animal with fins, ghoti -- per GBS! I agree that some spelling choices convey hints or allow one to make WAG about the writer, but the content is after all more important than the spelling. At least in this absurdist orthography. Groucho, Chico, and Harpo could have done better.

The WP style guide also says that it's agnostic on AE vs BE spelling but that the spelling in an article shouldn't be changed around just for that. Though many folks do. Peruse the foolishness about cypher v cipher at Talk:cryptography for an example. Imran even remembered a good example of cypher which I'd forgotten about before he reminded me.

I say, if Shakespeare could spell his own name five different ways, who am I, a next to functional illiterate if you watch my typing, to say anything different. It's mostly harmless, especially when redirect can take out most of the search confusion.

Got to go, unfortunately. ww 20:51, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deleted content

[edit diff -- intgr [talk] 18:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)]

I removed the above from the article. Whoever started it has probably lost interest in trying to finish it, since its been more than a year, and in its current state it does not seem to have any useful information. Arvindn 17:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

@HAITI: Hi and welcome. This is a good article to start from, but even when editing not very good articles, it's best to do it as incremental changes, rather than a complete rewrite like you did.

Note that the fact alone that some content is unsourced isn't reason to remove it. If the article has survived in this current form for years, without anyone challenging it (e.g. by using template, removing or creating a discussion), then it represents an implicit consensus. If you have a reason to suspect it then that can be a reason to boldly remove it or slap a tag on it.

In particular, I think the old paragraph involving "Therefore, the term "cryptosystem" is most often used when the key generation algorithm is important" is an important point about the actual usage of the word, in my experience "cryptosystem" is overwhelmingly used for systems that involve more complex key generation: asymmetric algorithms. Also I found the old explanation easier to understand in layman terms. A problem is that the "Formal definition" section does not talk about key generation, I don't know how to address that.

Removing the rest I agree with, I haven't seen anything to support the statements about "cryptographic system" in literature.

There were also some style issues, most importantly involving a missing lead section. -- intgr [talk] 18:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Intgr: Will edit more incrementally, and have become familiar with `WP:EDITCONSENSUS/LEAD' notions. In agreement that emphasizing key generation aspect of the "cryptosystem" definition will be beneficial. Thinking about this as well. Your experience, advice (and corrections) are appreciated.

Thank you. HAITI (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)