4 ms·

This kind of marketing approach lowers the world's collective intelligence. Keccak is a good enough construction that it doesn't need to be promoted with low q

by nullc 9y ago

This kind of marketing approach lowers the world's collective intelligence. Keccak is a good enough construction that it doesn't need to be promoted with low quality FUD.

jameskegel 9y ago
Is there marketing when it comes to hashing? That's absurd; it seems more like a hard stop being put to an unfair comparison.
- gopalv 9y ago
  > Is there marketing when it comes to hashing? Hashing is pretty much a market for lemons - the adopting user is confronted by a complex math they don't understand and there is a definite problem if you drive out with the wrong hash function. And there is no way to tell without actually being miles down the road when you find out whether it was a peach or a lemon. The choice by a user might come down to the same sort of vague arguments in a used car lot - "I hear Hondas don't break down much". There's always some "academic influencing" to do more research based off your own papers, which in turn drives more grants to your own branch of research. At least that's what I read off the following quote > "We feel that the cryptanalysis of more structured designs such as Rijndael/AES or Keccak/SHA-3 leads to publications that provide more insight."
baby 9y ago
The final line refers to agl' "maybe skip SHA-3" blogpost. I think there is a lot of FUD about SHA-3 (including SHAKE) being too slow for mortals to use, I'm guessing the Keccak team is pushing back with some marketing. Honnestly this is how the world works. Nobody understand anything about crypto and people take decisions based on standards and public opinions (which are often based on articles and blog posts). If you want your primitive to have some weight, you have to give people an excuse to use it.
- gcp 9y ago
  Bad press can kill a primitive even if it's incorrect. The Keccak guys had this happen to them with Noekeon. They're still sore over it, presenting this about 10 years later: https://www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki-esc2010/images/7/7a/Noekeon-ESC.pdf https://www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki-esc2010/images/7/7a/Noek... To be honest, if I'd design something this elegant, and nobody considers if because of an irrelevant attack, I'd be very sore and alert for it happening again, too.
npscalar 9y ago
It is however a fact that several cryptographers are moving away from ARX. Some do that for hardware efficiency (e.g., as promoted by NORX designers), some do that to better estimate impacts of differential cryptanalysis (e.g., MD6, probably Gimly too?). The post makes those points more explicitly to our attention than any other post I had seen before. Hence, no FUD to me.

by nullc 9y ago

This kind of marketing approach lowers the world's collective intelligence. Keccak is a good enough construction that it doesn't need to be promoted with low quality FUD.

jameskegel 9y ago

Is there marketing when it comes to hashing? That's absurd; it seems more like a hard stop being put to an unfair comparison.

gopalv 9y ago
> Is there marketing when it comes to hashing? Hashing is pretty much a market for lemons - the adopting user is confronted by a complex math they don't understand and there is a definite problem if you drive out with the wrong hash function. And there is no way to tell without actually being miles down the road when you find out whether it was a peach or a lemon. The choice by a user might come down to the same sort of vague arguments in a used car lot - "I hear Hondas don't break down much". There's always some "academic influencing" to do more research based off your own papers, which in turn drives more grants to your own branch of research. At least that's what I read off the following quote > "We feel that the cryptanalysis of more structured designs such as Rijndael/AES or Keccak/SHA-3 leads to publications that provide more insight."

baby 9y ago

The final line refers to agl' "maybe skip SHA-3" blogpost. I think there is a lot of FUD about SHA-3 (including SHAKE) being too slow for mortals to use, I'm guessing the Keccak team is pushing back with some marketing. Honnestly this is how the world works. Nobody understand anything about crypto and people take decisions based on standards and public opinions (which are often based on articles and blog posts). If you want your primitive to have some weight, you have to give people an excuse to use it.

gcp 9y ago
Bad press can kill a primitive even if it's incorrect. The Keccak guys had this happen to them with Noekeon. They're still sore over it, presenting this about 10 years later: https://www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki-esc2010/images/7/7a/Noekeon-ESC.pdf https://www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki-esc2010/images/7/7a/Noek... To be honest, if I'd design something this elegant, and nobody considers if because of an irrelevant attack, I'd be very sore and alert for it happening again, too.

npscalar 9y ago

It is however a fact that several cryptographers are moving away from ARX. Some do that for hardware efficiency (e.g., as promoted by NORX designers), some do that to better estimate impacts of differential cryptanalysis (e.g., MD6, probably Gimly too?). The post makes those points more explicitly to our attention than any other post I had seen before. Hence, no FUD to me.