4 ms·

Unfortunately, this argument doesn't really make sense. Just like decades of software development (should) have taught us, and just like fighting climate change

Unfortunately, this argument doesn't really make sense. Just like decades of software development (should) have taught us, and just like fighting climate change, doing physics research, giving antibiotics, fighting terrorists, criminals, spammers, enemy armies, eating healthy, raising kids, whatever--multiple approaches and techniques and tools are always a good thing. Why would crypto be the one single area of life where there was a Right Answer? The fact that crypto is part of an arms race with criminals and authoritarian governments is strong evidence that a monoculture is not the right approach.

tptacek 11y ago
It is demonstrably not the case that diversity in cryptographic constructions is always a good thing. What it usually results in is a diversity of single points of failure.
- adt2bt 11y ago
  Great point. When selecting a crypto approach, it makes no sense to not choose what is apparently "the best" at this time. However, is there a legitimate concern that we're collectively hoping DJB hasn't messed anything up? I'm no expert in the area, but are there ways to prove that his work is correct?
  - wolf550e 11y ago
    Many people have tried to find flaws in his math. DJB and friends now work on formal verification of implementations.
woodman 11y ago
All those examples are extremely high level abstractions, but cryptography is not - it is a direct application of math to a single purpose. > ...multiple approaches and techniques and tools are always a good thing. Only at a very high level. If you switched out "cryptography" with "privacy protection" then you'd be right.
bascule 11y ago
Cryptographers are mathematicians working in a limited problem space. It should therefore be no surprise that they converge on similar solutions (e.g. both RSA and D-H were discovered at GCHQ years before they were independently rediscovered by the people in the initialisms)

tptacek 11y ago

It is demonstrably not the case that diversity in cryptographic constructions is always a good thing. What it usually results in is a diversity of single points of failure.

adt2bt 11y ago
Great point. When selecting a crypto approach, it makes no sense to not choose what is apparently "the best" at this time. However, is there a legitimate concern that we're collectively hoping DJB hasn't messed anything up? I'm no expert in the area, but are there ways to prove that his work is correct?
- wolf550e 11y ago
  Many people have tried to find flaws in his math. DJB and friends now work on formal verification of implementations.

woodman 11y ago

All those examples are extremely high level abstractions, but cryptography is not - it is a direct application of math to a single purpose. > ...multiple approaches and techniques and tools are always a good thing. Only at a very high level. If you switched out "cryptography" with "privacy protection" then you'd be right.

bascule 11y ago

Cryptographers are mathematicians working in a limited problem space. It should therefore be no surprise that they converge on similar solutions (e.g. both RSA and D-H were discovered at GCHQ years before they were independently rediscovered by the people in the initialisms)