> It is the difference between theoretical and practical. Yes, there is a difference. It's always possible that the telephone traffic is being intercepted by s

> It is the difference between theoretical and practical. Yes, there is a difference. It's always possible that the telephone traffic is being intercepted by some entities, like Room 641A. On the other hand, a proper random number generator or a public-key encryption algorithm shouldn't even have the theoretical possibility of introducing a backdoor to start with. When cryptographers have published papers that give strong proof that an algorithm is designed to be able to theoretically contain a backdoor, you know something is seriously wrong. > they have earned their reflexive blind distrust. Of course, after Snowden has presented his evidence, everybody now understands that everything that designed to be backdoored, will be backdoored. If NIST is purposing a new standard, it will be definitely taken with a grain of salt. I think I've made the points clear, > yes, the final standard may be backdoored, yes, the NSA may manipulate the industry to adopt problematic standards, and yes, sometimes there are reasons to distrust standards and their commercial products. But no, there is no reason to believe that the studies and findings from a public competition itself is harmful or backdoorod. The raw research during the competition is valid and valuable. The vast majority of research is taking place OUTSIDE of the NIST, until the late stage, NIST is merely a forum for everyone, including the NIST people, to submit their comments and attacks. Once we have reached to the final round, the NIST will pick a winner and standardize it. And perhaps add a backdoor. The point is, if something looks fishy, you don't have to use the one NIST standardized. You can simply choose other finalist, or even create your own, based on the knowledge of secure construction which is shown during the competition. Normally, at this point, the competition has already given enough information about what is secure and what is not. To summarize, NIST standards may be bad, but the knowledge obtained during the research for the competition is always good. In 2022, if NIST starts standardize something, then your comment makes perfect sense. But it's largely off-topic for the current moment.