Secrets and Lies

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

…ts I've seen that are completely broken security wise thanks to this. If you're interested in the field, I'd suggest starting by reading the canonical introductory text, Secrets and Lies .( http://www.schneier.com/book-sandl.html ) This is not a field anyone is going to thank you if you want to learn on the job.

…re I wrote AC. If PC disavows AC, then I've failed to find the disavowal by looking up the pointers to AC in the index of PC. There's something nearer to a disavowal in "Secrets and Lies", but it still doesn't go further than (I paraphrase) "I focused on the algorithms, but actually other stuff matters more". (Both books mention that plenty of very bad systems have been built by people who read AC and thought they were therefore experts, but I don't think it's fair to blame that on AC.) There's a reason why I put "arguably" in front of "definitive" :-). But the point is that what got Schneier famous was writing a big fat book, with lots of technical content, that a lot of people read and were impressed by. That may be less solid than writing a big book that deserves to impress everyone, but it's not at all the same thing as pure blogging …