3 ms·
The way this headline reads, it sounds like NSA could, at any moment, flip a switch and _poof_ there's a backdoor in your crypto. I'd prefer to see some deeper
by delinka 10y ago
The way this headline reads, it sounds like NSA could, at any moment, flip a switch and _poof_ there's a backdoor in your crypto. I'd prefer to see some deeper explanation that gets us from "NSA" to "backdoor in your crypto."
Personally, I understand that NSA has made recommendations to NIST for decades. Those recommendations typically make it into standards. Those standards get implemented in software. I also understand there's lots of ~paranoia~ concern about anything NSA recommends and that oftentimes, software authors don't take their advice. (Sure, we don't know if the NSA recommendations are honestly excellent, or designed to facilitate backdooring; but not knowing whether the recommendations are trustworthy is part of the problem...)
- logicallee 10y agoI find the headline fair, after reading the article. The implication of the article is they "could have put" those trapdoors in, since there are primes that have actually been widely adopted following their recommendations. BUt if the headline actually read "could have put" then it would sound like an accusation, or speculation. By putting it in the present tense it simply shows that it is possible for this to be performed. It's a very neutral phrasing.
- Retric 10y agoThey may put backdoor into future cryto systems, and they may have already put a backdoor into existing crypto systems. Just as possibly they may know a cryto system is weak and not tell anyone, or suggest an improvement to a proposed cyrpto system. So, really unless you understand the advice you can't judge their suggestions.