-3

In response to one of my answers, a user took one part of my answer, declared that my including that one part means that "your answer [is] all about this one weird quirk of this one" part and stated "It honestly seems to me like you're actively trying to confuse people and resisting all suggests that ou [sic] be clear and unconfusing." When I asked for an explanation for what's wrong with my answer, the user referred me to their original comment, which I had already informed them was uninformative, and proceeded to make a bunch of vague assertions.

When I pointed out that the user was refusing to be clear, they said that "I don't know how to be clearer." and said "I can't provide a full cryptography education in a few sentences.", dishonestly suggesting that I was asking for an explanation of cryptography, when I was simply asking that they explain what their comments meant, and presented strawman misrepresentations such as "For example, your second paragraph now asserts that signing has something to do with a process to recover the original signed data from the signature". Then, after spending several comments being rude and evasive, they said "I'm going to give this one more try on the off chance you're actually being honest and not just trolling me."

"off chance" means small. So they are saying there is a small chance I am not a troll, i.e., I most likely am a troll. How is accusing someone of deliberately trying to confuse people and probably being a troll, while engaging in dishonesty, acceptable behavior?

  • 2
    I'm not entirely clear what you want to be done about all this. – schroeder Dec 16 '18 at 21:54
  • // , I'm going to go with a hearty "Yes!". You should meet Mr. Schwartz in person, he's actually a capital fellow. – Nathan Basanese Jan 9 at 22:32
4

What I'm seeing in the chat log is someone with "the curse of knowledge" trying to explain something while the other person is responding, "you aren't being clear." And then both parties getting frustrated.

Your logic that he "called you a troll" is not correct. And your logic that he is being "deceptive" is also not correct. While he might not have been clear in his assertions about what you wrote, I can see his points. He is hoping you are not being a troll, and so he continues in his ineffective explanation in the hope of being effective.

I'm not sure what a mod or the community can do.

As a side note, your understanding of digital signing is false. While someone could walk through your answer line by line to explain, I actually think it would be more efficient for you to look at the topic from first principles. You are mixing up definitions and concepts and I feel that you need to redefine those else any explanation will only be more confusing.

  • 2
    Hey @Acccumulation , I will just add that your answer seems to rely on a common misconception - signing has nothing to do with encryption, public key or otherwise. Yes there are some shared internal building blocks, but as an algorithm encrypting and signing are two separate things. I think the other fellow was trying to explain that, without realizing that was the misunderstanding. – AviD Dec 17 '18 at 12:42
  • @AviD "nothing to do with encryption" is difficult to communicate when: instantssl.com/https-tutorials/digital-signature.html and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature say otherwise. There are cryptographic elements, just not in the same way. – schroeder Dec 17 '18 at 12:59
  • 1
    cryptographic elements, sure. Sharing some of the internal building blocks, I said as much. But it is a common misconception that it is simply reusing encryption as such. – AviD Dec 17 '18 at 23:08
  • 1
    Btw, that Comodo (instantssl) link is all kinds of terribad. Including our other common misconception, that hashing is encryption... But yeah, I used to think signing was that process of "reverse encrypting" the hash as Comodo helpfully misplains, till I was set straight. The Wikipedia article doesn't actually say otherwise though, in fact there is a whole section about keeping them separate. – AviD Dec 17 '18 at 23:09
  • I completely agree, but "signing has nothing to do with encryption" is a hard sell when all the top hits on Google seem to say it does. – schroeder Dec 18 '18 at 9:35
  • Oy, yeah. Still, we probably have a canonical on that? – AviD Dec 18 '18 at 9:58
  • If not, we should. – schroeder Dec 18 '18 at 10:00
  • @schroeder The problem largely comes from people explaining digital signatures by only using RSA as an example (something I'm guilty of as well), which results in the common misconception. But it's still wrong, just as wrong as the belief that a CSPRNG gets weaker the more randomness you extract from it, which is also "supported" by a quick online search. – forest Dec 18 '18 at 10:12
  • @schroeder you may even need a canonical where explaining what would look like a chain with encryption, signin, encryption + signin and also decryption, check of signature, and decryption+check of the signature and the cryptographic blocks (no technical explanation there, just the high-level stuff) involved for a full view, however that might make it too broad. I think the current answers in the question lack a BoB/Alice diagram :) – Walfrat Dec 18 '18 at 15:24
  • @forest you up for it? – schroeder Dec 18 '18 at 15:25
  • Let's make sure we don't already have one, though – schroeder Dec 18 '18 at 15:25
  • How's this? security.stackexchange.com/questions/162461/… – schroeder Dec 18 '18 at 15:26
  • 1
  • 1
    I like this one. – AndrolGenhald Dec 18 '18 at 17:05
  • 1
    @Acccumulation Ok, First, I was looking for a canonical question not an answer. Second, what answer I think you are referring to makes the same conceptual mistakes you do, but gets the process details far more correct than you do (you say "signing the hash" for instance). Third, you posted this question because you perceived insult from an implication of what was said, while now you are directly rude. We'll pick this up again in the new year. – schroeder Dec 25 '18 at 19:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .