Ack those graphs have various classes of concepts as nodes which really bothers me (systems/attacks/people)
The nodes are “things to discuss”, and everything you mention there fall into that category.
But it’s interesting that you say that - I’m developing a larger version of this diagram where the different types of nodes are distinguished, and the nature of the relationship is made explicit. I share your disquiet, and it’s part of what’s driving the design.
Makes sense. Thanks for engaging with the comment - I appreciate that.
Internal to my research lab (although hopefully someday more openly) we’re working on a graph strictly of crypto concepts, particularly those which are sufficient for/imply the existence of one another. E.g. nodes might be “Random Oracle” or “Zero-Knowledge Sigma Protocol” which both might point to “Fiat-Shamir Heuristic” which might be one node pointing into “Non-Interactive Zero Knowledge” in that they are sufficient for its construction. We also want to encode black-box impossibility results similarly.
Why would brute force only be associated with Caesar cipher, as the diagram implies?
“Brute Force” can be applied to everything, absolutely everything, with varying degrees of success. As such, having it associated with everything carries no information.
However, in the case of the Shift Cipher it’s practical and successful (and parallelisable). In other cases it is only successful once other techniques are applied to reduce the computation needed.
Similarly “Frequency Analysis” isn’t used only in the case of the Substitution Cipher, but that’s where we first meet it, and then it’s a tool we can use repeatedly elsewhere.