Is your argument "real-world cryptography isn't cryptography", or am I misunderstanding?

EDIT: I can't reply due to rate-limiting, so here's my reply to your reply below:

-----

> My argument is "real world cryptography" is a euphamism for security engineering for people who want to sound more badass.

It's not a euphemism.

Take a look at the accepted papers at the aptly named Real World Cryptography symposiums: https://rwc.iacr.org/2020/program.html

Breaks on OCB2. Lattice attacks on TPMs. MPC research. Privacy-preserving telemetry.

I'll accept that you may personally have only seen security engineering work under the guise of "real-world cryptography", but to call it a euphemism is erroneous.

-----

> Well if someone wrote an article about the Poincaré conjecture calling it the "crown jewel" of math, and someone else said "actually I consider the primary goal of math to be in helping build low-cost housing and other practical issues," then they're talking about two different things. Both are math, but to say that the Poincaré conjecture isn't important to math because you use math primarily for different things is misleading.

All of the proposals for homomorphic encryption I've seen to date (which, for transparency, were mostly in the realm of encrypted databases) don't provide any protection against chosen-ciphertext attacks. If [F]HE isn't IND-CCA2 secure, which is the minimum bar for encryption that should be used outside of academic settings, then calling it the crown jewel only serves to hype up a technology that will fail to protect users.