Why I’m Writing a Book on Cryptography
So looking forward to buying a copy of this! As a writer with a bit of an atrophied crypto background, going through the online text, being able to start with <i>why</i> we need a hash function does a lot to tease out what they are and how they work. Leading with how we need to be able to prove some data has not been altered or tampered with, because reasons  - may seem trite, but when we get deeper into how you do that, being able to link it back to that reason helps the reader develop and ontology of the concepts.<p>I like your diagrams (I used sequence diagrams as a way to visualize BAN logic for protocols in my own stuff), and they will really elevate the discussion.<p>Why use an HMAC instead of a KMAC? Why would anyone want to derive a key? When does it matter whether you use an integer or Galois field counter? Why bother calling it a GF when it&#x27;s just binary anyway? Why would I chose a protocol that used a symmetric cipher over an asymmetric one? When I was working on (and breaking) tokenization protocols, the discussions I was in started with getting developer agreement on why we needed to use a given primitive, and then asking how&#x2F;whether each implementation decision supported that need. It&#x27;s the old &quot;start with why&quot; method of explaining.<p>Ordinarily I wouldn&#x27;t be so free with opinions on someones work, but systems designed to frustrate humans ability to comprehend them, shockingly, are among the most difficult subjects to write about. So looking forward to a copy, as admittedly I still find some more modern concepts a bit mystifying.