
Kerckhoffs's principle - markeightfold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle
======
rdl
It's annoying that there's a similar sounding but totally unrelated
Kirchhoff's circuit laws from ee; the really crazy thing would be using secure
multiparty computation (circuit evaluation...) to show some kind of artificial
relationship between the two laws (in that one special case), just to troll
people more.

~~~
dubfan
Not only that, there's also Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation)

~~~
wlievens
Boy that Kirchhoff guy's been a productive fellow.

------
citrin_ru
Kerckhoffs' principle is common knowledge, but it very often violated. E. g.
it is almost not possible to buy car alarm/immobiliser system with known
cryptographic algorithms and protocols. As a result - most car security
systems use weak crypto (or no crypto at all), rely on security by obscurity.
And it is possible to steal car using wireless code grubbers (to sniff key
when owner lock/unlock car).

------
namuol
But obscurity isn't the enemy of secure crytpo; it's just not the solution to
it. Assuming the enemy "already knows the system" is fine, but that doesn't
mean obscurity itself somehow _reduces_ security...

I know that's not what the principal posits, but that's an attitude I
frequently encounter, and I find it profoundly annoying, for some reason.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
> but that doesn't mean obscurity itself somehow reduces security...

Banks have window facades for a reason... Transparency is also a way of
_increasing_ security. It cuts both ways.

Consider a weakness in a hash algorithm. If found by a 3rd party, you want
this information to be publicly announced as soon as possible (be you Alice or
Chuck), but that's only possible if the algorithm is widely available in the
first place.

------
canistr
Is anyone elsed appalled at the fact that this Wikipedia article was amended
to include a mention of Bruce Schneier?

 _Bruce Schneier ties it in with a belief that all security systems must be
designed to fail as gracefully as possible:_

Is it _REALLY_ necessary to add that to the entry?

~~~
hansjorg
It's Wikipedia, so you're free to remove it if you think it doesn't belong.

------
thaweatherman
So why is this being posted? Kerckhoffs' principle is common knowledge, I
thought

~~~
dsugarman
I'm not the OP so I can't speak for him but here is why I think it's cool he
posted it now:

1\. not everyone is familiar with cryptology, actually the majority of people
aren't.

2\. IMO it is extremely relevant to the NSA. If there was complete
transparency but an elegant system, we can have a secure country.

~~~
goldenkey
It is the right of the people to overthrow a barbaric government. When a
government makes it their main concern to prevent dissent, rather than to
uphold the constitution of our nation, they have strayed from their rights and
duties as governors. There is nothing elegant about the government having the
twitch ability to single-out every dissenting "radical" and efficiently
terminate their "threat." A sudden change in political wind, and you could see
your neighbor disappear because he was a "communist" rebel. Take the current
wiretaps and surveillance and channel them back 40 years, and imagine the
consequence on the populace. We need to prevent our government from being able
to destroy dissent, and that includes invasive invasion of privacy, regardless
of its current use and form. It will always be a horrendous potential energy,
a spring ready to swallow up the good will of the nation.

[http://www.sandiego6.com/story/cia-director-brennan-
confirme...](http://www.sandiego6.com/story/cia-director-brennan-confirmed-as-
reporter-michael-hastings-next-target-20130812)

------
nimble
Obscurity is underrated.

