4 ms·

I see the tin foil hats are out in full swing, but the reality is, far from what people assume. From someone who has been following this saga, this is more a fi

I see the tin foil hats are out in full swing, but the reality is, far from what people assume. From someone who has been following this saga, this is more a fight about how the NSA cooperates (or lack thereof) with ISO and other standards orgs. Most likely due to their own internal self-conflict. As others have mentioned Simon and Speck very straightforward. There really isn't much room for obscuring anything there. On the other hand, when any group that's a part of a standards org begins to feel so privileged that they can operate under their own rules and without truly cooperating with the others and share information in the way that people are asking for it, it's going to breed further mistrust given the already tense environment due to the history there.

nebulous1 8y ago
I don't know anything of the technical details of Simon and Speck, but distrusting the NSA hardly entails a tinfoil hat.
- tptacek 8y ago
  "Distrusting" one of the simplest "mainstream" ARX ciphers entails a little bit of tin foil. That's not really why ISO isn't moving forward with them.
  - xansi 8y ago
    That seems to be exactly why ISO isn't moving forward, or at least has been in the past. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-standards-insight/distrustful-u-s-allies-force-spy-agency-to-back-down-in-encryption-fight-idUSKCN1BW0GV https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-standards-insight/d...
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Distrust of the NSA has cost it the deference it was given by academic cryptographers to basically ignore the process norms of public crypto standards. That's not the same as saying the academic cryptography community distrusts a simple ARX design.
- ddtaylor 8y ago
  This is a pre-2013 discussion.
calcifer 8y ago
> I see the tin foil hats are out in full swing, but the reality is, far from what people assume. So the people who are suspicious of NSAs motives and actions are "tin foil hats", but your position is somehow "the reality"? > From someone who has been following this saga What does following mean here? Who are you? What are your credentials that somehow make your opinion more authoritative than that of others? > Most likely due to their own internal self-conflict. So you are just guessing? Is it at least an educated guess? If so, based on what? > There really isn't much room for obscuring anything there. Is there a publicly verifiable analysis by cryptographers to back this claim?

nebulous1 8y ago

I don't know anything of the technical details of Simon and Speck, but distrusting the NSA hardly entails a tinfoil hat.

tptacek 8y ago
"Distrusting" one of the simplest "mainstream" ARX ciphers entails a little bit of tin foil. That's not really why ISO isn't moving forward with them.
- xansi 8y ago
  That seems to be exactly why ISO isn't moving forward, or at least has been in the past. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-standards-insight/distrustful-u-s-allies-force-spy-agency-to-back-down-in-encryption-fight-idUSKCN1BW0GV https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-standards-insight/d...
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Distrust of the NSA has cost it the deference it was given by academic cryptographers to basically ignore the process norms of public crypto standards. That's not the same as saying the academic cryptography community distrusts a simple ARX design.
ddtaylor 8y ago
This is a pre-2013 discussion.

calcifer 8y ago

> I see the tin foil hats are out in full swing, but the reality is, far from what people assume. So the people who are suspicious of NSAs motives and actions are "tin foil hats", but your position is somehow "the reality"? > From someone who has been following this saga What does following mean here? Who are you? What are your credentials that somehow make your opinion more authoritative than that of others? > Most likely due to their own internal self-conflict. So you are just guessing? Is it at least an educated guess? If so, based on what? > There really isn't much room for obscuring anything there. Is there a publicly verifiable analysis by cryptographers to back this claim?