4 ms·
What's also interesting is how the NSA admonished and personally attacked three cryptographers (including Daniel J. Bernstein aka djb) and called them incompete
by Jerry2 8y ago
What's also interesting is how the NSA admonished and personally attacked three cryptographers (including Daniel J. Bernstein aka djb) and called them incompetent:
>the NSA's behavior was outrageously adversarial to the process. They refused to motivate design choices they made such as the choice of matrices U, V, and W in Simon's key schedule. Instead, they chose to personally attack some of the experts (including @hashbreaker, Orr Dunkelman and myself) as incompetent.
>This is yet another example as to how the NSA's surveillance program is bad for global security. If they had been more trustworthy, or at least more cooperative, different alliances would have probably been formed. But instead, they chose to try to bully their way into the standards which almost worked but eventually backfired.
Rest: https://twitter.com/TomerAshur/status/988696306674630656 https://twitter.com/TomerAshur/status/988696306674630656
- metalliqaz 8y agoI wonder how they personally attacked those experts. Was it public?
- tptacek 8y ago"Personal attack" is a pretty big stretch here. The NSA is generally dismissive of academic cryptographers, and was dismissive here.
- metalliqaz 8y agoOkay that's what the article says but the tweets specifically say that they attacked the credibility of some very well respected security experts
- tptacek 8y agoIf they're talking about what I think they're talking about, they're referring to a technical argument in which pretty much everyone was dismissive. It was still more civil than a typical HN thread, which is in turn more civil than a typical Reddit thread, which in turn is... my point being: outrageous personal attack is a bit of a stretch.
- metalliqaz 8y agoI take it you're referencing a discussion that isn't public?
- twistiti 8y agoSo, the strech is loosely defined. I concur - please reference source material.