5 ms·

The reason we made it through the 2000's includes huge contributions from crypto society. I can't imagine how we would be without public release of SHA/RSA/AES/

by SriniK 16y ago

The reason we made it through the 2000's includes huge contributions from crypto society. I can't imagine how we would be without public release of SHA/RSA/AES/PGP/... As you said, we have to commend MSFT for stepping up on security, being a clear winner of the os race.

tptacek 16y ago
Wow, do we ever disagree on that one. SHA, RSA, and AES have caused more harm than good, modulo the one very specific massive win of SSL/TLS.
- SriniK 16y ago
  That is an interesting comment. How did SHA/RSA/AES cause more harm? Every other web developer has to use SHA for one thing or the other. SSL is the application of RSA.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    SSL is the application of RSA like a pebble bed nuclear reactor is the application of radioactivity. Every-other-web-developer's use of SHA has created vulnerabilities, from crappy password hashes through poorly-considered URL authentication schemes that have blown up on extremely well-funded teams (see: Amazon and Flickr). Just like that Boy Scout who figured out how to extract uranium from old clocks and gas lanterns, most of the time, when lay developers try to build something with cryptography, all that happens is that a team of people in hazmat gear have to come clean up the mess.
    - SriniK 16y ago
      It's like you are saying though tools are good but because ignorant people use it, tools must be bad. This is the classic example of 'fools blame their tools'. AES/SHA/RSA are really good tools and great asset for crypto community.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        That's all you've got? "Fools blame their tools"? Who then, besides the people who wisely chose to eschew these particular tools, isn't a fool? Who's used them well, from 2000-2010?
- jacobolus 16y ago
  > SHA, RSA, and AES have caused more harm than good Do you mind elaborating or linking to a useful discussion somewhere? I’m having trouble imagining just what would be better without these algorithms.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Think hard about where these algorithms have actually been a user win. Sure, SSL and PGP (though these are both products of the 1990s). Maybe, maybe you could win an argument for SSH --- thought SSH has a really bad track record. What else? Mostly, people who try to use RSA or AES end up like the people at the turn of the last century who ingested radium tonics.
    - jacobolus 16y ago
      Okay, but if they didn’t exist at all, why would we be better off? It’s not like the “people” here would suddenly all start making secure systems.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        * Crypto has made minimal contributions to actual user security for the last 10 years. It's hard to claim crypto "got us through the 2000's" when, for much of that time span, every platform in common use was vulnerable to flaws that ultimately yielded your OS kernel to an attacker. * Meanwhile, most --- literally most --- efforts at deploying crypto have reduced security, by creating new attack surfaces riddled with easily-exploitable flaws. I don't think this is a very tricky argument, although the place it leads you to may feel counterintuitive and wrong.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]

by SriniK 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

Wow, do we ever disagree on that one. SHA, RSA, and AES have caused more harm than good, modulo the one very specific massive win of SSL/TLS.

SriniK 16y ago
That is an interesting comment. How did SHA/RSA/AES cause more harm? Every other web developer has to use SHA for one thing or the other. SSL is the application of RSA.
- tptacek 16y ago
  SSL is the application of RSA like a pebble bed nuclear reactor is the application of radioactivity. Every-other-web-developer's use of SHA has created vulnerabilities, from crappy password hashes through poorly-considered URL authentication schemes that have blown up on extremely well-funded teams (see: Amazon and Flickr). Just like that Boy Scout who figured out how to extract uranium from old clocks and gas lanterns, most of the time, when lay developers try to build something with cryptography, all that happens is that a team of people in hazmat gear have to come clean up the mess.
  - SriniK 16y ago
    It's like you are saying though tools are good but because ignorant people use it, tools must be bad. This is the classic example of 'fools blame their tools'. AES/SHA/RSA are really good tools and great asset for crypto community.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      That's all you've got? "Fools blame their tools"? Who then, besides the people who wisely chose to eschew these particular tools, isn't a fool? Who's used them well, from 2000-2010?
jacobolus 16y ago
> SHA, RSA, and AES have caused more harm than good Do you mind elaborating or linking to a useful discussion somewhere? I’m having trouble imagining just what would be better without these algorithms.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Think hard about where these algorithms have actually been a user win. Sure, SSL and PGP (though these are both products of the 1990s). Maybe, maybe you could win an argument for SSH --- thought SSH has a really bad track record. What else? Mostly, people who try to use RSA or AES end up like the people at the turn of the last century who ingested radium tonics.
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    Okay, but if they didn’t exist at all, why would we be better off? It’s not like the “people” here would suddenly all start making secure systems.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      * Crypto has made minimal contributions to actual user security for the last 10 years. It's hard to claim crypto "got us through the 2000's" when, for much of that time span, every platform in common use was vulnerable to flaws that ultimately yielded your OS kernel to an attacker. * Meanwhile, most --- literally most --- efforts at deploying crypto have reduced security, by creating new attack surfaces riddled with easily-exploitable flaws. I don't think this is a very tricky argument, although the place it leads you to may feel counterintuitive and wrong.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]