Talk:Kerckhoffs' Principle/Draft

Translation of second principle

I'd like to take out the first English version given here, leaving the French and the second English version which I think is a better translation. Any comment? Objection? Sandy Harris 02:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

My translation would be "The system must not require secrecy, and having it fall into the enemy's hands should not cause problems." Use that? I prefer it to either of the sourced translations. Do we have any French-speaking editors? Sandy Harris 02:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak French, but I think we have some native speakers and many who are fluent. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

My take: "It should not depend on secrecy, nor cause inconvenience if it falls into the hands of the enemy." --Daniel Mietchen 13:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, more amusement than value perhaps, two machine translations. Altavista gives "It is necessary that it does not require the secrecy, and that it can without disadvantage of falling between the hands from the enemy." while Google gives "He must not require secrecy, and it can conveniently fall into the hands of the enemy." All the human translations are better. Sandy Harris 16:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a confusing one! Maybe : 'The method must not need to be kept secret and should not cause trouble if it falls into the enemy's hands' Celine Caquineau 15:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ron Rivest gives[1] "Compromise of the system should not inconvenience the correspondents." Sandy Harris 05:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of lede

Maybe it's that I'm only halfway through my first cup of coffee, but the formatting of the lede is making my eyes jamgle--I know what a slot machine feels like after the handle is pulled. Cquotes and blockquotes can work if there is only one, or if there's a fair bit of text between them, but this makes my vision jitter.

Nevertheless, the topic is important and there is much solid content. Perhaps a little more summary text in the first sentence or two, before the quotes, might hemp. --Howard C. Berkowitz 14:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Help, not hemp. No, I'm not smoking the article. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've edited some and am now reasonably happy with the intro and "security by obscurity" sections. I don't think the last section is right yet, though. Care to have more coffee, and optionally hemp, and either tackle that yourself or make suggestions? As you say, the topic is important. It would be nice to get this to an approvable state. Sandy Harris 03:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited some more & am now reasonably happy with the whole thing. Comment solicited. Sandy Harris 04:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

forthcoming Approval

This one looks pretty clean to me -- Howard made one *teeny* formatting change a year or so ago. If there are no further changes I will Approve it on the stated date. Hayford Peirce 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a change. No text added or removed, just re-ordered by moving a paragraph. Sandy Harris 13:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The version number in the metadata points to a talk page version. D. Matt Innis 02:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I won't Approve it unless it gets fixed. Hayford Peirce 03:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This Version Approval Needs to Be Changed!

Howard, as Matt has pointed out, the version you have told us to Approve is the Talk page. What's going on?! Hayford Peirce 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bump. Add a line so Howard is more likely to notice this. Sandy Harris 14:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Am I now the primary approver, not Peter, or am I confused with Cryptography? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am changing it to the latest version with Sandy's minor cleanups, which I think is acceptable without bumping the date. --Howard C. Berkowitz 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Approved Version 1.0

Congrats again! Thanks Sandy for finally getting Howard's attention :) D. Matt Innis 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Paper arguing for "security by obscurity"

"A new theory" Sandy Harris 01:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with

Kirchhoff's laws. Peter Jackson 10:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)