Koblitz and Menezes have written that provable security results for important cryptographic protocols frequently have fallacies in the proofs; are often interpreted in a misleading manner, giving false assurances; typically rely upon strong assumptions that may turn out to be false; are based on unrealistic models of security; and serve to distract researchers' attention from the need for "old-fashioned" (non-mathematical) testing and analysis. Their series of papers supporting these claims have been controversial in the community. Among the researchers who have rejected the viewpoint of Koblitz-Menezes is Oded Goldreich, a leading theoretician and author of "Foundations of Cryptography." He wrote a refutation of their first paper "Another look at `provable security'" that he titled "On post-modern cryptography." Goldreich wrote: "...we point out some of the fundamental philosophical flaws that underly the said article and some of its misconceptions regarding theoretical research in Cryptography in the last quarter of a century." In his essay Goldreich argued that the rigorous analysis methodology of provable security is the only one compatible with science, and that Koblitz and Menezes are "reactionary (i.e., they play to the hands of the opponents of progress)."