3 ms·

But we've engaged with those motivations, and found them lacking -- so libsodium is still what tqbf and I recommend. (Not NaCl! libsodium is sufficiently intere

by lvh 10y ago

But we've engaged with those motivations, and found them lacking -- so libsodium is still what tqbf and I recommend. (Not NaCl! libsodium is sufficiently interestingly different that you should use it, not NaCl.) It is not true that any attempt at new crypto software will just be shut down; for example, I think Noise is awesome. I think STROBE is pretty cool too, but I'm not telling people to implement STROBE. I'm telling people to use libsodium. Telling people to use the probably-already-packaged, carefully reviewed, random-nonce supporting package they had available yesterday _is_ solid engineering advance, and I stand by that claim.

Cyph0n 10y ago
I definitely agree that going around adopting freshly written and poorly tested crypto libraries is A BAD IDEA EVERY TIME. Absolutely no argument there. I still got a very "stop what you're doing and move on" vibe from the parent comment as well as the response on the Reddit thread, and I feel that it wasn't fair in this case. I apologize if I misunderstood.
- lvh 10y ago
  To go back to said comment to see what was actually said: > First: it needs to be made clearer why anyone would use this rather than Nacl/Sodium. ... and a comment about how a few test vectors is not a serious cryptographic audit. So it seems that the parent agrees with you, and nobody told anyone to stop doing what we're doing. The thing we (well, I; I don't want to put words in tqbf's mouth) did say repeatedly, is "the answer is still libsodium". It seems like that, too, is something you agree with.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    I'm sure that could have been phrased in a way that got the point across without patronizing the submitter. I wonder how many potentially great cryptographers had their ambitions killed off because of statements like this?
    - lvh 10y ago
      Which patronizing statement? Is "it needs to be made clear..." patronizing? Surely asking why you'd want to use something is reasonable.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
> random-nonce supporting package Wait a minute, what's that? Does it just mean nonces big enough to be random, or something more I should consider for inclusion in Monocypher?
- lvh 10y ago
  Big enough to be (safely) random. Potentially: NMR.

by lvh 10y ago

Cyph0n 10y ago

I definitely agree that going around adopting freshly written and poorly tested crypto libraries is A BAD IDEA EVERY TIME. Absolutely no argument there. I still got a very "stop what you're doing and move on" vibe from the parent comment as well as the response on the Reddit thread, and I feel that it wasn't fair in this case. I apologize if I misunderstood.

lvh 10y ago
To go back to said comment to see what was actually said: > First: it needs to be made clearer why anyone would use this rather than Nacl/Sodium. ... and a comment about how a few test vectors is not a serious cryptographic audit. So it seems that the parent agrees with you, and nobody told anyone to stop doing what we're doing. The thing we (well, I; I don't want to put words in tqbf's mouth) did say repeatedly, is "the answer is still libsodium". It seems like that, too, is something you agree with.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  I'm sure that could have been phrased in a way that got the point across without patronizing the submitter. I wonder how many potentially great cryptographers had their ambitions killed off because of statements like this?
  - lvh 10y ago
    Which patronizing statement? Is "it needs to be made clear..." patronizing? Surely asking why you'd want to use something is reasonable.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

> random-nonce supporting package Wait a minute, what's that? Does it just mean nonces big enough to be random, or something more I should consider for inclusion in Monocypher?

lvh 10y ago
Big enough to be (safely) random. Potentially: NMR.