Requested by @Kosher Dill, translated by me, the source is pages 89-102 from Danisch's 797 page long opus Adele and the bat [A], which is a documentation on corruption, fraud, and incompetence at the Karlsruhe university and in IT security.What?! Can I request this one next?(I wrote about an astoundingly high number of German professors being functional illiterates)
The quality of professors
Illiteracy among professors
Now I want to show that certain kinds of illiteracy are widespread among professors. At first glance, this might seem to be a contradiction. The glance is right. It is a contradiction. However, this contradiction doesn't mean that such a thing can't exist. It means that it mustn't exist.
An illiterate is, generally, someone who cannot read and write. However, you need to consider that illiteracy is used not just as an absolute, but also as a relative term. Illiteracy is measured by what is expected of a person by the society in which the person lives. There are cases of so-called "functional" or "secondary" illiteracy when the individual expertise is lower than the required expertise and the expertise that is taken for granted. That means that a university professor of a Western industrialized country is measured with a different standard than a mere laborer or employee.
Illiteracy, by the way, is not exclusively the case when you can't read at all, which is called "primary" or even "total" illiteracy. It is also the case when you don't sufficiently understand what you read, or can't express yourself in written language as well as you should be able to. Thus, it is not just about combining letters of the alphabet, but also about the cognitive abilities in processing written language. Thus, for the PISA studies, they did not just have students read texts aloud, but also had them answer questions on the content afterwards.
Greek letters
The first reviewer Beth has rejected my dissertation, among other reasons, because, in the abstract, I made a neologism which I derived from Old Greek. Of course, I wrote down the used vocables in Greek script. But the reviewer was not able to read them. He helplessly said that he was not able to find the term in the German language dictionary. The exact details and facts in this event are as comprehensive as they are amusing, which is why they are described in their own chapter from page 244 onward.
The reason is that he cannot read Greek letters. The man has a PhD and is a habilitated mathematician. From mathematicians and computer scientists, you expect them to be able to read Greek letters, they are constantly being used in science. Knowing them is thus a norm for this clientele. Failing to read a single word, if an entire paragraph of text around it is explaining it, is illiteracy.
German language - "Guaranteed security"
Both reviewers, especially the second reviewer Zorn, rejected my dissertation, among other reasons, because the dissertation doesn't bring "guaranteed security", which they vehemently demand. Thus, in his assessment, Beth writes about "theoretical channels with very special guaranteed characteristics" and demands the dissertation have a "guaranteed, not-before-reached quality". Zorn, in his assessment, demands that "communication security must be achieved, guaranteed" and that "guaranteeability" needs to be there. He reprimands that it remains questionable "whether and how communication security can be guaranteed at all", and that his question of "guaranteed communication security" is answered in the negative for the dissertation. And the faculty director, for his review decision, just copied it and didn't think about it.
In the description of Zorn's project HUELKA (or WebMST-3T), it says on the website of the Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH:
The security concept of the system "Haushalt-Online", also called HUELKA, guarantees data security also in the open Internet, so that a separated administration network is not needed.
And in the current lecture on "network security" (summer semester 2003) and its script, you see titles such asProtocols that guarantee the confidentiality of data
How can the integrity of data be guaranteed using CBC?
How can both confidentiality and integrity be guaranteed together?
What does "guarantee" mean? It means to take responsibility, to answer for it, when something fails. When, for example, a machine doesn't work or a debtor doesn't pay. A guarantee [warranty] for a washing machine means that the warranter (manufacturer, vendor, insurer...) takes on the costs when the washing machine needs to be repaired or replaced or, for instance, causes water damage. A guarantee does not mean that you have presented a mathematical proof according to which the washing machine cannot break."Guaranteed security" is something that a salesman or an insurance company can offer. In the purely technical area of communication security, "guaranteed security" is a contradiction in itself. He who talks about a guarantee insinuates - if he understood the term - that the thing he guarantees can potentially fail and he wants to personally answer for it. Not only would that be meaningless, because there is no "damage" caused in research when a protocol is unsafe, but it would be also highly questionable to present a security mechanism and then say that you're not sure if it works, but you pay if it doesn't.
Surely you can now counter that "guarantee" is a colloquial term that is just being used without putting deeper thought into it. But if you use this term to reject a scientific dissertation and accuse the examinee of imprecise usage of words, then such colloquial sloppy work is not acceptable anymore. When a professor stakes the review of a scientific examination work on not offering "guaranteed security", which he considers to be absolutely necessary, but doesn't know what "guaranteeing" is, then he is blathering empty words without grasping their meaning, and that is a form of functional illiteracy.
But if two professors do that and the department presents them as the only experts who can assess this subject, then that is an expressive statement on the quality of the department and the educational location Germany.
Covering up the reading difficulties
The two assessments on my dissertation read like inflammatory pamphlets, like bills of indictment by the inquisition. A true cannonade against the dissertation, one broadside after the other, very impressive. No good word is made, but, universally, everything has been damned as extremely wrong, clumsy, nonsensical, and such. What you notice very quickly in the second assessment, you only notice in the first assessment after a more intensive, if not repeated reading: Behind aggressive, derogatory, or even pseudoscientifically theoretical elaborations, it is covered up that the two reviewers were not able to understand and follow the criticized content of the dissertation.
The second reviewer doesn't even say anything about the dissertation at first, but, for ten pages, repeats arbitrary excerpts, completely without comments, there are no notes in the copy of the dissertation, only wild marker pen scribbles - and that was already the case in chapters written in normal language. In chapter 5, which is about cryptography and mathematics, he fails completely. He simply writes that he doesn't want to reproduce that. To say at least anything, he says something on a completely different subject, a different area of computer science, which isn't even true.
The supervisor and first reviewer had a similar story: If you analyze his assessment precisely, then you realize that he never really says anything about the dissertation, but keeps putting some wild substitute elaborations in the context which he would not have made if he understood what is written in the dissertation. But he covers that up really well by jettisoning a lot of fancy and complicated-looking phrases. But if you examine his elaborations, nothing of that has substance, they are illogical and erroneous. He works purely with word associations which, almost always, tackle persons or the sound of words rather than the subject-scientific content. This is certainly similar to some illiterates memorizing the way some important words look instead of really being able to read them. And that illiterates have developed often-amazing abilities to cover up their illiteracy. Something similar is happening here, but not on the lower level of reading, but on the level of understanding a subject.
The things he claims in his assessment, he has not understood himself, but caught on somewhere, copied them, found them, and then combined them associatively, but wrong in terms of content and subject. His elaborations sound good - not a single one survives a closer examination.
Overchallenged by simple sentences
In the university law, § 10 par. 2 says, regarding examination dealings:
The principal decides on appeals.
Simple syntax, understandable German, clear statement. You can tell that to the principals, the principal's office, the legal department, the other departments and department heads as often as you like. They don't grasp it intellectually. Three principals in a row refuse and say that handling appeals is not part of their duties. One even told me precisely that.
In § 50 par. 4, it says:
The assignment of topics for diploma theses and equivalent final theses, as well as the supervision and evaluation of such theses, may only be entrusted to professors, university lecturers, and private lecturers; this also applies to academic staff who have been granted examination authority pursuant to sentence 3.
But many professors absolutely refuse to accept that they have to evaluate diploma theses themselves and can't delegate that to their normal employees.
Technological illiteracy
In my opinion, the question of illiteracy must also include media competence with the media that correspond to the age and culture. If you want to be able to read and write, you must know how to operate a book, a ballpoint pen, a quill, parchment, wax tablet, or maybe even the stone chisel. Or how you read and write an e-mail. That is why kids learn it in school nowadays. There are professors of computer science who, to this day, or at least until recently, would not be able to read and write e-mail without external help. They would be helpless without their secretaries. Some of the memos from the faculty director to the professors appear twice in the files: Via e-mail for some, on paper for the others.
Utilizing written information is not practiced
A very important characteristic of functional analphabetism is that the use of written language is not part of the natural and automatically used working and communication techniques. It is hard to imagine that such a thing is not the case particularly at a university. But, in a shockingly high amount of areas, it isn't.
It it astounding what little value many professors put in writing. Unbelievably much is blathered only orally, personally or on the phone. If there is no way around it, you need a dictation machine and a secretary to "translate" into the written form.
Even in procedures as important as the creation of exam regulations or a principal's election, they only blather and debate. Going to a library and informing yourself on what you are even supposed to do there - a very basic academic skill - isn't a part of it. They just wing it arbitrarily. The thought that some place could specify what exam regulations must contain doesn't cross their minds. Even after a principal's election has to be rescinded because of formal errors, the senate reached a consensus that it had to be wrong because nobody from the senate understood it. They don't get the idea of just reading it. A HR department is struggling to create my employment reference letter. Buying a book for 10 euros and just reading how you do it is outside of the realm of imagination.
Each and every professor I have spoken to, and who have been evaluating and grading for years or decades, has never come across the idea that they could look up what an assessor has to do and what an assessor is supposed to not do. Many were completely surprised, some didn't even want to believe it, when I told them that there are genuine judgments from courts, even the Federal Constitutional Court on the topic. Hardly anyone knew the term "Prüfungsrecht" [law governing examinations]. Afterwards, all of them claimed to know examination law, but nobody really knew what's in there.
At a public session of the senate, I was left dumbfounded: In the dispute around the principal's election, it was about a paragraph of the university law. They presented every member with a printout of the paragraph, because it was completely alien to the professors to inform themselves independently about university law. Somebody had to go do it for them. In some conversations with professors, I had no choice but to find out that some of them don't even know that there is a university law. And the ones who at least were familiar with the term don't know what's in it. It is incomprehensible to me how these people want to fulfill their assigned duties.
The freedom of research and education is not being understood as a basic [constitutional] right, but as a universal defense phrase. Whenever a professor somehow feels constricted in his freedom and capriciousness, they reflexively complain about a violation of the freedom of research and education. Reading what that is about and who this basic right protects against whom and not against whom, that is taboo. Ignorance is strength.
Every public servant takes an oath to the constitution and the basic rights, but nobody gets the idea of reading what they just swore an oath on. Basic rights are as alien as the semantic of an oath.
Inability to articulate
The entire computer science department is not able to somehow articulate their evaluation criteria and requirements for PhDs in language and set them in writing. First, my supervisor tasked me with supplementary work and gave "standards of the faculty" as the reason. Then he rejected the dissertation because they allegedly weren't sufficient for the "standards of the faculty". I have caused a lot of turmoil when I wanted to know what that is. They are not able to describe them in some way. Everybody believes to know precisely how dissertations are evaluated, but nobody can articulate it.
This isn't simply negligence or capriciousness. This is a collective inability to grasp, comprehensibly describe, and set in writing the most important working bases. But that is the meat and potatoes of science!
Grasping new material
In the administrative court case around the evaluation of my dissertation, it was about the question of what other professors from the department could be utilized as reviewers. The department stubbornly stuck with their opinion that all of them have declared themselves not responsible for the subject and nobody has the necessary subject expertise. Essentially, they said I was unable to be reviewed because the professors know less than I do. They carried it too far when they presented, to the administrative court of Baden-Wuerttemberg, affidavits from a few professors in which they explained that they are unable to review my dissertation because they have never done anything like that before. A [female] professor who, at the same time, held a lecture on network security, had the stance that she hasn't done that in her research work and therefore isn't able to do it now either.
A judge from the administrative court, himself a professor, educated the university that this professor is certainly a viable reviewer. Because, you could expect from a professor that, using books, he trains himself up in a new subject to the extent that he can review someone else's work in it.
As a reminder: Functional illiteracy is given when the individual competences and abilities are lower than the ones that are required and expected as a given. The standard is what is expected by the person in the society that the person lives in.
Micro-management
If you accuse the university in general or a professor in particular of not supervising their graduate students or not supporting their employees in their work, you will come across bitter objections. Not only because they don't like to get the accusation, but because, in part, they seriously believe to do supervising. Similar effects can be found in other areas as well.
The root cause for this is simple and already known in the industry. Whenever management tasks are held by people who lack management abilities, who are not subject to quality controls and a pressure to deliver good results, and who feel the need to highlight their leading position by dictations and orders and such, or are under the pressure to pretend that there is no lack of management, the result is so-called micro-management.
Micro-management is when somebody in a leadership position doesn't work on the duties that match his level in the hierarchy, but instead gets lost in excessively supervising or even doing the detail work of the people in the lower hierarchy levels. Micro-managers are bosses who try to work on not their own tasks, but the tasks of their subordinates, that is, they have been placed too high up in the hierarchy. A reason for this is that such managers don't know or are overchallenged by their own duties, but in any case, they don't follow through with them and thus look for "replacement duties". Another reason is that people whose subject competence and leadership abilities are not beyond doubt often feel the need to highlight their position by wanting to give subordinates overdone or even nonsensical detail mandates in their subjects.
This micro-management is extremely widespread at university and is emboldened by the fact that professors are practically never assessed on whether they fulfill their own duties. On one hand, they have no pressure to deliver and frequently they don't even know their duties, on the other hand, no positive feedback is being given to them for fulfilling their duties - from where, anyway, they have no boss who praises them, no quarterly or yearly goals to reach. The freedom of research and education and the "autonomy" of universities have caused professors being left by themselves without any controls, without positive or negative feedback. The personal suitability for such a deserted job is only had by the fewest professors. Thus, they get hopelessly lost in the details instead of following a big picture strategy.
A further reason is that candidates for professorships are not being chosen by their management abilities. In the [private] industry, it is natural to ask about the abilities, experience, and expertise of a person when you staff a position with managerial responsibilities. But that's not the case at university: If you graduated with honors and are habilitated, wrote many dry publications in one of the thousands of journals, you are Superman himself, you can do anything. They believe that, if you are good as a publishing scientist, you can be a professor too. And that is a fallacy.
The consequences are devastating: Constantly and everywhere, professors try to dig around in some details or trifles while completely losing sight of their own duties. The very important "macro-management" doesn't exist, it simply doesn't take place.
Years ago, I, alongside a colleague, only managed to dissuade the director of the institute from an administrative instruction with the biggest efforts. He has visited a semiconductor factory in the USA in which Alpha processors are manufactured and heard that the Alpha processor is very nice. And got to know one of the inventors personally. That's who he's heard it from. So he came back and gave the instruction to throw out all Sun workstations and instead procure machines with Alpha processor because then you could use much better software, which his vision as a boss is then to thank for. What operating systems we used, what softwares the employees needed, that we already had loads of computing power and that you can even translate C programs for different processors, he didn't care. We also had an abundance of money that you could burn on a pointless replacement of the entire infrastructure.
A similar effect was shown in the SFB 414. While a relatively profane and purely technical firewall installation - a pure routine task - has been dressed up as a top-level boss decision and the item of protocolled sessions of the top leadership level, absolutely nobody was caring about the context, the coordination of procedures, the project planning, the reasons for the delays. They are carving a single tree to death, but are not able to see the forest.
A similar event happened with a statement for the federal parliament, the creation of which I have been tasked with, because this is necessary for the "defense of my dissertation against the other professors". Ultimately, I alone drafted, structured, and created the statement. The director of the institute - actually the official agent - put an otherworldly amount of energy into trifles and side issues which did not even appear in the final statement. The entire institute has been assembled in a grueling session from roughly 9 PM to almost 3 AM to discuss how the very first page of the introduction could be phrased in the most impressive and pompous way. It has been twisted and wriggled, only to, after 6-7 hours with roughly 8 people, come back to the result to leave the page pretty much the way I wrote it. They did not make it past the first page. Over one man-week [as in, more than 168 man-hours] have been wasted on nothing, and that was with a big shortage of time. Then he also invested a lot of energy in designing the reference section of the statement as impressively as possible. Even to the last day before the deadline, I received 40 pages via fax machine on what has to be quoted in the bibliography in order to look scientific and grant allegedly important people a citation. However, the question of what is actually supposed to be said in the statement, what stance you have, what direction you're going, what statements you make on the subject, he never cared about that. He left all of that exclusively to me. Still, afterwards, he claimed to be the author of the statement.
And this is precisely how the supervision of PhD student goes. What the topic of the work is is not interesting. The same is true for what statement, what method is behind it. What the requirements for a dissertation are, what the examination criteria are, is unimportant. How one does academic work - actually the only item that is being examined - never gets talked about. Instead, you hyperfocus on the tiniest trifles. Thus, a PhD student who wrote a dissertation about algorithms to process CT scan data, was tasked to look at mechanical computing machines in the introduction. The supervisor never made any comment on the topic of the dissertation. And he also had another PhD student tweak individual phrasings and wordings in his dissertation for months without ever talking about the topic of the dissertation. Sometimes, orthography and grammar of a sentence have been discussed to death, but not a single second has been spent thinking about what is said by the sentence and whether it's right or wrong.
And this is precisely what his dissertation review looks like in my case as well. Whether a problem has been solved, an exam performance has been fulfilled, the qualification that is to be examined can be granted, he makes no statement on that at all. He did not understand what his duties as a reviewer are. The statement is an 18 page long sequence of vilification and accusations in which he gets upset over individual details and trifles (and is consistently wrong in doing so). Thus, he gets upset over phrasing or typos, is speculating on what someone else could say on it, whether the phrasing could be damaging for some company, what other works would need to be cited, whether there are too few or too many definitions, and more such "trifles". Alleged orthographical mistakes, the usage of "bullets", new or old spelling rules [in 1996, the German language had an orthography reform], he is practically reveling in them. It plays no role whether the dissertation is about network security or preparing cottage cheese. It plays no real role whether the topic has been tackled and the problems are solved. What's important to him is what big researchers and works are being cited and who died recently. Whether the dissertation has a subject index is being checked. On the topic of the dissertation, namely network security, nothing is being said. At no point does he get to what is he supposed to do as a reviewer. In the review, you learn whether old or new spelling has been used. When the reviewer has been to London. Or who he considers to be the greatest subject matter experts. Whether a network gets more secure or not with this dissertation, it doesn't say. He is fervently laboring on individual leafs on a twig of a tree, but he can't find the forest. If only the things he writes were at least correct...
The man is an extreme case, but no exceptional case. Thus, I recently obtained a diploma thesis review in which a professor graded a diploma thesis with only [C-] even though he himself admitted that the problem is completely solved. In terms of review, he just complained about some phrasings in the diploma thesis. The examination and evaluation of the actual exam work, namely the solution to the problem, whether the things in there are worth something, he completely forgot about. The review wasn't even one page long, he didn't even notice that. He didn't know what he was supposed to do as a reviewer. The man was not some nobody, he was one of the three candidates for the election of the principal.
Subject matter expertise according to the principle of opportunity
Subject matter expertise in a subject, you would think, either you have it or you don't. That, too, is different at the computer science department. Similar to particle physics, there is a dualism. Every professor is simultaneously an expert and a layman in every subject. Whatever he spontaneously decides is dependent on the corresponding constellation of interests. In doing so, he doesn't even need to decide, but he can simultaneously be an expert and a layman, depending on the point of view. In this matter, the uncertainty principle is applicable: The more precisely you ask who is an expert in a subject, the quicker that changes. The more light you shine at it, the higher the escape velocity becomes. A measurement error, so to speak.
The root cause is that, at the university, there are no positive or negative concrete criteria for who happens to be an expert in a subject matter and who isn't. You can pick and choose as you wish. You are an expert for whatever happens to get you money, fame, and press interviews in the moment. If "multimedia" is suddenly trendy, then people who never had anything to do with it are suddenly self-styled "multimedia experts". Or experts for quantum computers. Just like that, from one moment for the next.
Or security experts as well. Whenever it happens to seem opportune, everybody wants to be an expert, then there are a lot of them. But if there are duties or there is a threat of the alleged subject matter expertise needing to be proven, then suddenly everybody is gone. When I was searching for a new supervisor for my dissertation in 1998 and 1999, they said that Beth is the only one in that subject. Thus, they wrote to the ministry on 7.7.1999:
"In any case, Prof. Beth is the only university lecturer at the department of computer science who is knowledgeable in the field and therefore responsible for the doctoral topic chosen by Mr. Danisch."
This is why they originally invited an external second reviewer, after all. The question why he was replaced with Zorn, even though Beth was allegedly the only competent professor, they never wanted to answer. Just as little were they willing and able to explain why Beth is considered knowledgeable, because - other than cryptographic aspects - he has done anything in network security, held no lecture, did not publish anything. The things he said in his statements, and the things he can't say anything on, are very telling. And, ultimately, he says in his dissertation review:
"The correctness and meaningfulness of these claims can only be judged by protocol and networking specialists."
Then how did he become the only professor at the faculty who is knowledgeable in network security?
In the administrative court case, there was the question of what substitute reviewers were available. None, so the faculty claimed on 5.3.2002:
". . . Therefore, only professors who have been working in research in the relevant field for some time and who have such a good overview due to the quality of their research work that they are able to accurately assess and classify this progress can be considered as reviewers. It is therefore important and indispensable that the professors appointed as reviewers are highly qualified specialists with corresponding expertise in their field of research.
Due to this high degree of specialization, there are always only a few colleagues at the faculty of the University of Karlsruhe who meet this requirement for each subject area.
In other words: The faculty does not have so many professors that it could afford to have a double staffing or a big subject matter overlap in such specialized fields. In the present case of Mr. Danisch, there are just two colleagues, namely the current reviewers, who are responsible for this. Other than these two, others are out of the question as they are not in a position to adequately assess the work submitted and to classify it properly in terms of quality."
They are contradicting themselves. The requirements that they are making here are not being met by Zorn. He is not working in the subject matter and has not done and research work in it. He never had anything to do with network security - other than the colorful circles of his "Virtual Department Architecture" (p. 154 ff.). At university, you basically declare yourself an expert.
At the start of 2001, the administrative court forced me to retract my prejudice lawsuit against Beth and Zorn because, according to the university, no other reviewer is available. Beth and Zorn are prejudiced, no doubt about that, which is why they would immediately and directly hand me a verdict to win the case, but lose the dissertation because no other reviewers are there. The court believed the university right from the get-go. This is why the matter took some more time. But then, the court noticed that they were being lied to by the department, and sentenced the university in 2002 to have the cas reconsidered by another reviewer, because they had one.
Thus, they had Professor Dr. Krüger, who has evaluated at least one dissertation on the topic. But the department only admitted in 2003 that he could be put to task, and he was long retired by then, namely since 31.1.2001. Ahead of his retirement, when the question about other reviewers was posed at the start of 2001, allegedly he was not sufficiently knowledgeable in the subject. That the retirement had such a positive effect on subject matter expertise is astounding, but not an exceptional case, because also Professor Dr. Görke retired on 30.9.2001, he too has reviewed at least one dissertation on the subject matter. But they only admitted that after the retirement, at the beginning of 2001, they were still claiming that they had nobody other than Beth and Zorn available.
Thus, it is not just retirement that happens to be a subject matter expertise booster. Thus, Professor Dr. Schneider, who, earlier, reviewed another dissertation on the same subject matter, has left the university on 31.7.1999. In 1998, the faculty director still claimed that, other than Beth, there is no professor who works in that topic. In addition, for the board of examiners, and thus the oral examination, they set up the professors Nagel and Lockemann. But why the two professors are subject matter experts when they examine orally, but not when it's about written examinations, they were unable to explain so far. On Professor Dr. Juling, the university wrote to the court on 12.3.2003:
"Prof. Dr. W. Juling is director of the datacenter and, in this role, he also deals with the management and security of the university network. In doing so, he makes use of commercially available security products. He is the user of security techniques, but does not do research in that field. When it comes to a scientific evaluation of dissertations in the topic of security, he considers himself unable."
That is astounding. Shortly before, he considered himself so much better than an entire twelve-man security team, that he demanded 3,000.- Deutsche Mark for the review of a diploma thesis. He is allegedly so good that his mere presence causes a knowledge transfer that is worth its money (see p. 110 ff.). On Professor Dr. Zitterbart, they wrote:
"Mrs. Prof. Martina Zitterbart is also utilizing communication networks, especially in high performance communication and multimedia applications. She researches on the implementability and usability of secure protocols, but does not conceptualize them herself. She too is not knowledgeable in the area of cryptography. Thus, a comprehensive review of the plaintiff's dissertation is impossible for her."
That, too, is astounding. On her website, she describes what projects she has allegedly done in this area, namely "security in the Telekom's network infrastructure" or on two current projects:
"In the scope of the network security working group of the Deutsche Telekom AG, two projects on security aspects for the telecommunication infrastructure have been conducted. One project was concerning security aspects of the coupling of IP and cellular networks, in particular security-relevant questions that come with IP-based data services in current and future cellular networks such as UMTS. The other project was about the protection of IP infrastructure against attacks, especially on the recently growing number of attacks on service availability (Distributed Denial-of-Service - DDoS) of several components."
And in the summer semester 2003, she holds the lecture
Network security: Architectures and protocols
The focus of the lecture is the technologies that enable a secure communication in publicly accessible networks - such as the Internet. A part are mechanisms for authentificating the communication partner, the exchange of secret key material, and the transmission of encrypted and authentificable data, as well as the ensured maintenance of its integrity. From the different areas, the main architectures and protocols in use today are introduced and compared. The focus areas include key management architectures such as X.509 and Kerberos, key exchange protocols such as IKE, and the security protocols IPsec, SSL, and SSH.
Even though she is not "knowledgeable" in the area of cryptography. On the other hand, she doesn't hold the lecture herself, but "has it held". Now is that a sign for subject matter expertise or the lack thereof?
Currently, the department is claiming that Beth and Zorn are the only relevant and knowledgeable reviewers. That is why they can't give me any new reviewers for a re-evaluation. They don't want to allow legal proceedings. But if I were to abstain from legal proceedings, undertake to pay compensation, undertake to remain silent, adjust the dissertation so that Beth and Zorn don't get called into doubt, that is, add mistakes with which I justify the retrospective rejection, thus put up with a bad grade and refrain from any further legal proceedings, then, in some wondrous way, certain professors in the department would suddenly be responsible for the subject matter. Subject matter expertise according to the opportunity principle, the flag always flutters in the wind. Subject matter expertise has nothing to do with science, ability, and truth anymore, it has deteriorated to a merchandise article, arbitrarily available, can be turned on and off like a radio.
