(IMO) In that what it says about what specific things do does not correspond with objective reality. (As a product of the enlightenment I believe that such a concept exists and that correspondence with such is what makes something "wrong" or "right." ;-) If you want to know why, just look at what the article says, then observe objective reality, and see how they differ. The "Salt, Stretching" section is one place to look, it's the only one I really bothered reading.
You'll know the part I'm referring to because it reads practically as a response to a chunk of Gattol's page; it's a problem shared by the Wikipedia coverage on full-disk encryption.
Being cagey about it (i) motivates you to actually read the paper and (ii) avoids what would inevitably be an extremely unproductive debate.
(This is a fantastic survey, by the way; if you're interested in crypto, bookmark it forever.)
My amusement about Gattol's page has nothing to do with Gattol; it's just the way his page got used in this thread by someone else, as a sort of rhetorical "fatality" move. I'm confident Gattol is much smarter than I am. I say that because Dimino also tried to take this thread to Gattol on Twitter, too. :)
I figured if someone were besmirching my good work, I'd want to know about it, is all. I don't think one should be able to call someone wrong without giving them a chance to disagree.
Furthermore, this is devolving into a schoolyard, "I know but I'm not telling" situation. To put it another way, I don't think there is any significant error in the Gattol's page, nor is there any significant error on the wikipedia page on full-disk encryption.
I'm very glad to be shown to be incorrect on this point, but I doubt I would be, at least by you.
I'm interested in this area, both professionally and as a genuine curiosity, but every time I run into you it's a negative experience. I'd like that to stop happening.
That's a mighty fancy of saying, "it's wrong" without pointing out examples.
But hey, I'm not ultimately the guy who wrote the article. I've poked both the author and Thomas on twitter -- maybe Thomas can help the author correct any inaccuracies. You, too, could help I'd imagine, if you would be more specific about the issues. I'm guessing the author wouldn't want his article to remain inaccurate if folks could point out the specific issues.
