Talk:List of cryptography topics

Contents

1 Suggested topics 2 Listing people by surname 3 Revamp of list 4 Ordering by surname continued... 5 music <> cryptography (except to the tonedeaf?)

Suggested topics

Algebraic cryptanalysis -- Covertext -- Differential power analysis -- Digital fingerprint -- Kasiski attack -- Known-ciphertext attack -- Railroad fence cypher -- Related-key attack -- Slide attack --

Listing people by surname

Should we list people by surname rather than first name? e.g. Alan Turing under T rather than under A. — Matt 09:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Yes. And changing the name was on my list of to do's, until Arvindn noted some reluctance to have 3 pages which are essentially list of things. Still hadn't figured out how to cope with that, but let's see who else objects... ww

Ah, I've actually had a look at Talk:List of mathematical topics, and they discuss this point (reproduced below). In this view, the "list of FOO topics" is for editors tracking crypto* articles, not as a guide for readers; "Topics in cryptography", "List of cryptographers" and "Books on cryptography" would be for readers. I think this actually makes a fair bit of sense. — Matt 16:01, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Matt, I've just realized what you've done here. It has been observed that I'm sometimes slow on the uptake, for which I apologize in this instance. Very good work! I approve in the highest possible terms. And, having just reviewed the page history and poked around things a bit more, I have to add that I'm awed by the amount of work you've put in. I think Arvindn's reluctance to have so many List of pages must no be obsolete, or OBE as it is sometimes said. Good work! ww 15:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cheers, ww! Sorry I spammed the page history log a little though; I think I had a rather zealous night...

Also, it's quite handy to put in a hidden link to the talk page after the main link, otherwise "related changes" won't show the "Talk:" changes. So if it was topic CryptoFoo, you'd add [[Talk:CryptoFoo| ]] after the main link. — Matt 16:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some links on this list (there's over 300!) that aren't included in the topics in cryptography page, and probably should be. I can't think of an easy way (i.e. not by hand...) of comparing the links, particularly because the links in Topics in cryptography are often redirects rather than the main location. I might try and supplicate at Village Pump for ideas... — Matt 17:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

>>> Quote from Talk:List of mathematical topics:

Very nice and useful list. The only strange thing are the names of mathematicians. I guess they should be excluded somehow or they should be in a separate list as they are already in list of mathematicians.

The mathematicians are here so that we can track all changes on pages remotely related to math with a single "Watch links" operation. This list is not primarily for public consumption, and the alphabetical ordering is unimportant. If you want a nicely organized list of mathematicians, you can go to a list of mathematicians, but please don't remove them from here. Thanks, AxelBoldt 03:42 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

<<<

Revamp of list

I've revamped the list so that:

• it includes a lot more cryptography-related pages
• it includes a hidden link to each page's Talk page
• redirect pages are not listed
• it excludes broken links

In this format the page is useful as a "related changes" link list, and also as a list of the canonical names for pages, rather than redirected "aliases".

— Matt 22:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Now that I've finally noticed your note... I guess I would include broken links, as they can serve as pointers to work that needs to be started, just as your list above does. As for the rest, still very impressed by the amount of work you're doing. ww 19:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ordering by surname continued...

(discussion copied from User talk:Matt Crypto)

I will suggest, however, that names ought to be in alphabetical places at list. Looking at A, there are names ending with almost every letter of the alphabet. Hard to find folks that way. Thoughts?

ww 19:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(To clarify) are you referring to the fact that articles about cryptographers in List of cryptography topics are listed not by surname, but rather by the first letter of the respective article name? If so, then yes, it is hard to find people that way. My thoughts would be that people should be hunting for such articles in list of cryptographers instead, and that list of cryptography topics is primarily a tool for editors. I think there's some value in storing the canonical article name. Certainly, list of cryptographers should be sorted by surname. — Matt 16:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Yes to both cases. In the LofCT case, I'm an editor and I persistently look in the wrong place, and even put a person entry in the (currently) wrong place. It seems to me rather like not moving the brick (or cat) one keeps tripping over -- though unlike the cat the brick might actually stay moved and out of the way. Are they dumber than we imagine or what? There is no need that I can imagine (except convention) that entries under T should actually begin the name string with a 't'. It's our choice, we crypto fans, it seems to me.

Certainly in the case of LoC, the last name should govern. Readers shouldn't have to trip over metaphorical bricks.

Even the Oriental style doesn't cause this much ordering confusion! ww 16:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is indeed some value in ordering by article name. Sometimes I edit lists using scripts/macros, and the last step is often a sort, which would work only if the articles were sorted canonically. Arvindn 17:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ww -- OK, you're right that it doesn't matter (at least for me, see Arvindn) where the link is stored; I don't mind it being rearranged (as long as its consistent, whatever system we use). As a side note, I guess it would be nice if List of cryptographers was sufficiently up-to-date that even editors could look people up there! I'll try and look at it sometime... — Matt 17:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

music <> cryptography (except to the tonedeaf?)

I've just noticed that key signature is one of those articles which ought to be dab'd so we don't get confused about the music and they don't get annoyed by the crypto. Unless, I'm missing something, we should have a key signature (cryptography) article listed here, not the current one. I'll get around to changing it eventually I suppose, unless someone tells me there's a reason I've missed here. ww 17:33, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was just thinking this yesterday. It's the same thing as a fingerprint, right? — Matt 07:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Matt, There is here some terminological inexactitude on the crypto side, not merely between the music and crypto folks. Hadn't quite come to the forefront of my brain until your comment, though.

Key signature is used, as the footnote to this article now notes, to mean a message digest of a key value, and this is sometimes called a fingerprint of the hashed material, which can be of course a key, but usually isn't.

In PGP, a fingerprint was the first few bytes of the key (encrypted if I remember properly), and was used as a key fingerprint (ie shorthand for the key). In PGP now, that shorthand is the first few bytes of a hash of the key (probably of the encrypted key, I suspect). I've heard people use the phrase key signature for the PGP fingerprint (either type).

Key signature is also used in PGP to mean the endorsement (by digital signature) of a certificate binding by another user. I've never heard the term used for the same thing when done (in the first instance) by a CA. I'm unaware of the use of fingerprint to mean this in either case.

I have, once, encountered someone using key signature as equivalent to digital signature. When I enquired, it turned out that the person understood what a digital signature was, but had been told that the term to use for it was key signature since one's key was signing the material. I was unable to trace it any further as the class had been at a conference. I had dismissed this as the result of someone teaching others his own confusion. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

Looks like there's need for an article or two to clarify this swamp. ww 15:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)