The mentality of researchers in security

Neil Koblitz published an interesting article on his views about the field of cryptography; in particular, of the differences he sees between the fields of provable security and mathematics. In it he argues that the word "provable" is over-hyped, and it gives a false sense of security. Although this might be true, the problem is that we need an intuitive way to separate formal approaches to security (provable security) from approaches based on heuristic security arguments. Of course, several cryptographers such as the ones named in Koblitz paper (Oded Goldreich, and Hugo Krawczyk) and others (Jonathan Katz, Luca Trevisan) have made rebuttals to this article.

The tone of Koblitz and the rebuttals by several cryptographers just prove the last sentences of his paper: "The 'spy vs. spy' mentality of constant competition and rivalry extends to the disciplinary culture of the field. This can be excessive --and childish at times-- but it also explains in part why it can be so much fun to do research in cryptography."

This is the main reason I wanted to make this post. I have been recently discussing with several other people (even before I read this article) that the field of computer security had in general, a very competitive attitude. As someone who has been in security, machine learning, communications, and signal processing conferences, I have the impression that people attending security conferences are in general more aggressive than others. I think the attitude you find is of people trying to find gaps in other people's arguments to "break" schemes. This "in your face" attitude of breaking other people's work is not so noticeable in other fields. I have to admit though, that this attitude always keeps you on the edge, and you have to become a perfectionist in your results. This competitiveness is why "it can be so much fun to do research in cryptography" and security in general.