absolutely nothing to panic over

[Robert J. Hansen]

> *There is no secure communication over an insecure channel
> without out-of-channel bootstrap*.

At first blush this seems nice and formal, but it's pretty much incoherent.

"There is no secure communication over an insecure channel" is a
tautology.  An insecure channel is one which *by definition* cannot
support secure communication.  This statement is trivially true.

It gets worse if we go on.

"There is no secure communication over an insecure channel without
out-of-channel bootstrap."  Now you've gone from tautology to paradox:
you've defined the channel as insecure, except that with some magic
pixie fairy dust you can communicate securely over it ... but that would
mean the channel was secure, when you defined it as insecure.  Paradox.

You start from tautology and conclude at paradox.  This doesn't appear
to be something to be taken seriously.