rotor alternative?

[Peter Hansen]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> 
> Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:
> > I suspect that those who want rotor actually want something stronger
> > than it really is, but could actually get by with something even weaker
> > than it is (though they don't believe that), and leaving it out of the
> > standard library isn't a real problem, just a perceived one.
> 
> Actually it's the other way, lots of people think they can get by with
> rotor or with something weaker, when they really need something
> stronger.  Leaving rotor IN the standard library is a real problem.

Maybe it's both. :-)  Obviously at least some of the people here
don't think they can get by with less, and yet it seems increasingly
likely that they actually could, given that all that has been asked for
is "obfuscation".  (If the goal is to prevent accidental or casual
observation from revealing information, almost anything (like an XOR)
should be good enough.  Anything more needs something that shouldn't
be called "obfuscation", IMHO.)

I guess the point is then that rotor is in a dangerous middle ground,
where it looks better than it really is.  Either way it's the wrong
thing for someone to use, whether they want strong or weak encryption.

-Peter