>> dated, a little wrong about some things, but not insane (like _Applied Cryptography_ is).
Why is "Applied Cryptography" insane? As an interested bystander, I'm curious to know more.
Why is "Applied Cryptography" insane? As an interested bystander, I'm curious to know more.
Including all the failed crypto. By the end of it, you've got used to reading the (usually very impressive) credentials of the researchers, and through explanation of what they did, and then how it all fell apart after a few years of attacks. If read about how people far clever than you got it wrong over and over again, it is near impossible to come away without the impression "here be dragons - really big and mean ones", and the corollary "don't even think of trying to do this stuff yourself - just stuff on the shelf that has been proven over time".