> I'm sure the actual cryptographic primitives are well-known
> off-the-shelf models. The protocol by which they are combined into a
> complete system? Yeah, that's probably band new.

That was my point, you seem to be looking very narrow mindedly at jobs, 
and deciding which primitive to use and how to implement it into a 
complete system in a secure way is not trivial.

> You realise that Sony BMG didn't actually /write/ that, right? They just
> /bought/ it from some crappy 3rd party company [who presumably has
> really good sales staff].

Only if it is a completely off-the-shelf product that can be just used 
as-is. I would imagine in most cases the 3rd party would be developing 
custom software for someone like Sony, and thus Sony would be quite well 
involved with the spec and development, not just at management level.

>> It seems like a pretty endless list to me of companies that would
>> require programmers with a very good understanding of how to select and
>> implement cryptographic techniques. Hey, even we have two software guys
>> here implementing these things into RFID tags, and we make printers!
>
> Well, maybe. Also seems like they wouldn't need very many of these guys,
> and not very often.

If you're looking for a job where you spend 8 hours a day 5 days a week 
working on pure crypto algorithms then agreed these are going to be 
harder to find than ones where you work on crypto stuff as only a part 
of the job. I don't think we would employ anyone solely to do the crypto 
work, we need them to do other stuff when necessary (but then we're a 
small company where software is a minor part of the product).

Post a reply to this message

On 6-9-2012 21:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability
>>> to memorise and apply pointless algorithms...
>>
>> Off the top of my head:
>
>> research
>
> Seriously? That's a career? Talk about "vague"...

Not much more than: data-analist, programmer, or even farmer.
FYI when asked what my job is, 'researcher' is my most common reply.

Bio-informatics/bio-statistics would also fit your description.


-- 
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low

Post a reply to this message