Talk:Unbalanced oil and vinegar scheme

Confused
The article claims, early on, that '''Every asymmetric scheme has a public and a private key (Public-key cryptography). In known schemes like RSA the keys are bit strings. In the UOV scheme, and in every other multivariate signature scheme the keys are more complex.''' implying that UOV keys are something *other* than bitstreams.

This statement could certainly do with some amplification. If the private key cannot be represented by a sequence of bits it's not clear to me how it can ever be processed by a classical computer. Are we talking about an algorithm that *cannot* be implemented on a classical computer? This isn't explicitly stated by the article. Roybadami (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think I've misunderstood - the idea of a cryptosystem with a key that *cannot* be represented as a bitstream - how is that useful, even in a post quantum crypto world? Whatever these quantum states that we would be using as keys might be, we have precisely zero infrastructure for exchanging them....  So it's not that, right? Roybadami (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

standards
Please: Would those who habitually maintain this page look at this edit. In particular: Michael Hardy (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence had nothing to tell the lay reader that this is not an article about salad dressing. I moved the phrase "In cryptography,..." to the beginning.
 * The headings were full of words whose initial letters were capitalized merely because they were in section headings. A clear violation of WP:MOS.
 * Some letters were capitalized merely because they were the first letter of a link. E.g. "affine" had a capital initial "A" in the middle of a sentence.
 * Displayed TeX should be indented by a colon (or two or more colons if it's in a paragraph that's _already_ indented). See WP:MOSMATH.
 * Proper use of \ldots in TeX.
 * I used the "align" environment in TeX where appropriate.