4 ms·

The double-speak and quack-speak is getting a little thick for me lately. Government bodies frown heavily on end-to-end encryption, but also frown heavily on a

The double-speak and quack-speak is getting a little thick for me lately. Government bodies frown heavily on end-to-end encryption, but also frown heavily on authentication methods that are less secure. Why, whichever directive shall I adhere to? The more secure behavior or the less secure behavior? Maybe I should just do whatever benefits everyone else but me.

mackmgg 10y ago
I don't think it's fair to group all government bodies as one entity. The FBI may frown heavily on end-to-end encryption because they want to be have access to everyone's messages, but that doesn't mean that NIST isn't still trying to make everything as secure as possible.
Spooky23 10y ago
Police and security services are just one part of government. In the US, we're in an "encrypt all of the things" phase in most places regulated by the Feds. NIST stuff is pretty good, and is the basis for most of the mainstream security standards. The government plays a weird dual role. NIST gives good advice, but you need to understand what you're doing. Part of that is data classification and risk assessment, which is always art and science. When they get real explicit about guidance, that means the thing is broken.
retrogradeorbit 10y ago
Remember this is the same NIST that backdoored the EC coefficients [ http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html ]. And before that devised the "explanation" of how WTC7 collapsed. [ http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/927-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-intro.html http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/927-n... ]. NIST is a political organisation more than a scientific one. Here come the down votes.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > Here come the down votes. Nobody is impressed by your edgy downvote invitation.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  No. NIST is legally required to collaborate with NSA on crypto. It was widely reported that NIST people fumed about NSA undermining heir standard and they removed the offending crypto from the stNdard quickly.

mackmgg 10y ago

I don't think it's fair to group all government bodies as one entity. The FBI may frown heavily on end-to-end encryption because they want to be have access to everyone's messages, but that doesn't mean that NIST isn't still trying to make everything as secure as possible.

Spooky23 10y ago

Police and security services are just one part of government. In the US, we're in an "encrypt all of the things" phase in most places regulated by the Feds. NIST stuff is pretty good, and is the basis for most of the mainstream security standards. The government plays a weird dual role. NIST gives good advice, but you need to understand what you're doing. Part of that is data classification and risk assessment, which is always art and science. When they get real explicit about guidance, that means the thing is broken.

retrogradeorbit 10y ago

Remember this is the same NIST that backdoored the EC coefficients [ http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/rigid.html ]. And before that devised the "explanation" of how WTC7 collapsed. [ http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/927-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-intro.html http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/927-n... ]. NIST is a political organisation more than a scientific one. Here come the down votes.

Dylan16807 10y ago
> Here come the down votes. Nobody is impressed by your edgy downvote invitation.
Spooky23 10y ago
No. NIST is legally required to collaborate with NSA on crypto. It was widely reported that NIST people fumed about NSA undermining heir standard and they removed the offending crypto from the stNdard quickly.