4 ms·

Nobody said anything about a backdoor; the question was "what's suspect about Speck". Speck is suspicious (which includes more potential risks than just a "back

by pdkl95 8y ago

Nobody said anything about a backdoor; the question was "what's suspect about Speck". Speck is suspicious (which includes more potential risks than just a "backdoor") because "Everything the NSA and the US govt touches is suspect". This is the same kind of security-minded heuristic as the advice that you should restore from a clean backup instead of assuming you can even know how to clean a compromised host of every rootkit/backdoor/etc. Once trust has been broken, you have to assume risks might exist until proven safe. This is why burning trust is often a very bad idea; regaining that trust takes a lot of time and effort. Also, suspicion does not require an actual risk to exist. edit: For the record, I don't know much about Speck, good or bad. It might be fine, but that's orthogonal to the NSA earning a reputation that invites suspicion.

tptacek 8y ago
This is hand-waving. Backdoor, weakness, vulnerability, whatever you want to call it. What's the suggested mechanism? In fact, as another commenter here rightly points out, cryptography does not in fact run on trust; if anything, it runs on the opposite: verify.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  > cryptography does not in fact run on trust This is true if and only if you can and have read the underlying math/algorithm. I haven't read Speck. My mother hasn't read the details of any type of crypto. So we don't have a basis for trusting Speck from first principles; we have to trust someone else for their expert opinion. You're only looking at the technical details. In the real world, approximately nobody has the time and training to do that, and we must rely at least somewhat on trust. For those purposes, the NSA is no longer seen as a trustworthy expert. (I'll point out that I haven't suggested that nobody should use Speck. Also, my opinion of it might change upon seeing some basis for trust (i.e. endorsement by other trusted experts or if I find the time to actually read the technical details myself))
  - wglb 8y ago
    This is true if and only if you can and have read the underlying math/algorithm If you are doing cryptography, you do exactly that.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
Also, suspicion does not require an actual risk to exist. No, of course not. But if you are taking that position, you are basically saying "I suffer from paranoid delusions and don't confuse me with the facts." From what I gather from skimming this discussion, the question being put to you is "Suppose I don't suffer from the same paranoid delusions. What are the actual risks here that a rational person should be genuinely concerned with? Please and thank you."
- geggam 8y ago
  Google seems to be joining the tinfoil crowd https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=No-Speck-Yes-HPolyC-Encryption https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=No-Speck...
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Developing a superior lightweight cipher design doesn't mean Google is joining any particular criticism of SPECK.
    - coatmatter 8y ago
      Either way it's probably good for Google's reputation for them to roll their own. After all, they don't exactly have as high a standing as Apple appears to have for some things?
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    As a non techie (for the HN crowd), to me that lends weight to the possibility that there might be some genuine risk. Inability to prove or adequately articulate a risk is not the same as there being none. It's okay to take the position "What I know and what I can prove are two different things." My life only works at all because of my willingness and ability to act on threats before they could possibly be proven, like when I got moved to another team before the guy calling me doll and babe took it over. He was fired more than two years later for sexual harassment or similar, but he wasn't a major problem for me because I never worked for him. (Please note the "non techie" proviso and be kind if you feel the need to point out -- and explain why, using little words -- that it simply is not possible. Thank you.)

by pdkl95 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

This is hand-waving. Backdoor, weakness, vulnerability, whatever you want to call it. What's the suggested mechanism? In fact, as another commenter here rightly points out, cryptography does not in fact run on trust; if anything, it runs on the opposite: verify.

pdkl95 8y ago
> cryptography does not in fact run on trust This is true if and only if you can and have read the underlying math/algorithm. I haven't read Speck. My mother hasn't read the details of any type of crypto. So we don't have a basis for trusting Speck from first principles; we have to trust someone else for their expert opinion. You're only looking at the technical details. In the real world, approximately nobody has the time and training to do that, and we must rely at least somewhat on trust. For those purposes, the NSA is no longer seen as a trustworthy expert. (I'll point out that I haven't suggested that nobody should use Speck. Also, my opinion of it might change upon seeing some basis for trust (i.e. endorsement by other trusted experts or if I find the time to actually read the technical details myself))
- wglb 8y ago
  This is true if and only if you can and have read the underlying math/algorithm If you are doing cryptography, you do exactly that.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Also, suspicion does not require an actual risk to exist. No, of course not. But if you are taking that position, you are basically saying "I suffer from paranoid delusions and don't confuse me with the facts." From what I gather from skimming this discussion, the question being put to you is "Suppose I don't suffer from the same paranoid delusions. What are the actual risks here that a rational person should be genuinely concerned with? Please and thank you."

geggam 8y ago
Google seems to be joining the tinfoil crowd https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=No-Speck-Yes-HPolyC-Encryption https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=No-Speck...
- tptacek 8y ago
  Developing a superior lightweight cipher design doesn't mean Google is joining any particular criticism of SPECK.
  - coatmatter 8y ago
    Either way it's probably good for Google's reputation for them to roll their own. After all, they don't exactly have as high a standing as Apple appears to have for some things?
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  As a non techie (for the HN crowd), to me that lends weight to the possibility that there might be some genuine risk. Inability to prove or adequately articulate a risk is not the same as there being none. It's okay to take the position "What I know and what I can prove are two different things." My life only works at all because of my willingness and ability to act on threats before they could possibly be proven, like when I got moved to another team before the guy calling me doll and babe took it over. He was fired more than two years later for sexual harassment or similar, but he wasn't a major problem for me because I never worked for him. (Please note the "non techie" proviso and be kind if you feel the need to point out -- and explain why, using little words -- that it simply is not possible. Thank you.)