[My paper about exploiting shared caches in Intel Hyperthreading to steal an RSA key was rejected by the Cryptology ePrint archive "because it wasn't about cryptology"]
Why shouldn’t it have been rejected?
I can’t see how it was about cryptography either as they seem to define it based on the center of gravity of their papers: https://eprint.iacr.org/2004
Separately, if what you said about the security community downplaying your results as too theoretical was not just the occasional opinion of a maverick, then clearly that was incorrect and unfortunate in multiple ways.
Finally regardless of any of that, great work on your contributions. Nice insights and efforts, coming so early on in the lifespan of an important problem.
I can’t see how it was about cryptography either as they seem to define it based on the center of gravity of their papers: https://eprint.iacr.org/2004*
A quick search shows eight papers which have "side channel" in their titles, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that they don't consider side channel attacks to be cryptography...
I was trying to guess that 2004 was the most proximate archive year of their papers prior to when yours was rejected, hence that list: https://eprint.iacr.org/2004
Are you saying any of these papers make a significant argument about side channel attacks? Or of you saying there are eight papers that make some reference to it? If it’s the latter that’s quite a big difference and it’s easy to see the logic of rejecting your paper based on its central theme.
I didn’t notice any of the papers made a significant argument about side channel attacks. Maybe 2004 was not the most proximate year prior to take as sample data? Or maybe I’m just overlooking the eight your referring to?
Btw I wouldn’t begrudge you any wtf thinking if you had any. It would definitely suck to do good work and not get proper and timely recognition for it, especially when it could have sped a solution or helped mitigate a real life problem.
It’s just that to whatever degree this suckness happened, I can’t see how it was due to irrational or biased reasoning on the part of the Cryptology ePrint archive.
I'm saying there are eight papers on that list which have "side channel" in their titles. I assume, based on those titles, that the papers have something to do with side channels...
Why shouldn’t it have been rejected?
I can’t see how it was about cryptography either as they seem to define it based on the center of gravity of their papers: https://eprint.iacr.org/2004
Separately, if what you said about the security community downplaying your results as too theoretical was not just the occasional opinion of a maverick, then clearly that was incorrect and unfortunate in multiple ways.
Finally regardless of any of that, great work on your contributions. Nice insights and efforts, coming so early on in the lifespan of an important problem.