5 ms·

> The absurd logical conclusion of that criteria taken at face value is that we'd all be better off if we each used our own bespoke hash function, since cryptan

> The absurd logical conclusion of that criteria taken at face value is that we'd all be better off if we each used our own bespoke hash function, since cryptanalysis would never be able to keep up. The reason this "logical conclusion" sounds so absurd is that your reasoning here is absurd. What matters isn't "cryptanalysts haven't published an attack", what matters is "cryptanalysts tried and failed to attack the design". If you conflate the two, you will end up confused.

avar 7y ago
A reductio ad absurdum is always going to be absurd if taken at face value, but that doesn't mean the underlying point it's making isn't valid. Obviously I'm not saying that BLAKE hasn't gotten any analysis. It was a SHA-3 finalist, it's been looked at by a lot of smart people. I am saying it's a continuum, and it's safe to assume SHA-2 has gotten a lot more eyeballs & man hours by now. Both due to its age, and due to its widespread production use as a NIST standard. Is that a trite point? Yes, but one you managed to omit in your long summary of a Twitter exchange with a SHA-1 researcher, which is why I'm pointing it out. You're seemingly treating "analyzed" as a boolean property.
- CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
  > Is that a trite point? Yes The next question I would ask myself in this context is, "Should I have even raised the trite point in the first place?"
  - avar 7y ago
    It's trite because it should go without saying, but one you managed to selectively omit when summarizing a Twitter discussion. That makes you seem disingenuous. It's clear from anyone who reads that Twitter discussion that the thrust of Marc's point is not that we should be "reinforcing public trust in standards". To summarize the discussion in those terms amounts to attacking a strawman.
    - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
      > the thrust of Marc's point is not that we should be "reinforcing public trust in standards" It isn't? https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/1128330537645563906 https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/11283305376455639... https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/1128332202775863296 https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/11283322027758632... https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/1128378488732438528 https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/11283784887324385... "Marc Stevens wants to reinforce the public trust in standards, especially among non-experts" isn't an uncharitable summary of this conversation. > That makes you seem disingenuous. If I'm mistaken about the point he's defending, it's not an act of dishonesty. Given that he at multiple points agreed with my arguments that standards bodies make dumb mistakes and yet continued to double down on "we should just follow standards anyway" without caveat, there aren't many alternative interpretations that I'm aware of. If I still seem disingenuous, it might be that you want me to seem that way. In which case, there's no point in either of us continuing to participate because it has ceased to be about security and instead has become a discussion of ego, which I'm frankly uninterested in.
      - realhashbreaker 7y ago
        Actually, I did add caveats and do recognize that not all standards are equally important. In the tweets you link I'm talking about secure standards, as in standards that are actually considered secure. But my point was not "just follow standards anyway". This tweet clearly shows that: https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/1128383029255258112?s=09 https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/11283830292552581... Rather that it is better to promote to work through standards as a community as opposed to your way of where individuals promote their pet primitives. Standards serve a role as a focal point: the benefit of being big targets, getting a lot of scrutiny and easier for non-experts to find out if somebody found security issues.
        CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
        Okay, then let's work together to get better standards than the ones currently available.

avar 7y ago

A reductio ad absurdum is always going to be absurd if taken at face value, but that doesn't mean the underlying point it's making isn't valid. Obviously I'm not saying that BLAKE hasn't gotten any analysis. It was a SHA-3 finalist, it's been looked at by a lot of smart people. I am saying it's a continuum, and it's safe to assume SHA-2 has gotten a lot more eyeballs & man hours by now. Both due to its age, and due to its widespread production use as a NIST standard. Is that a trite point? Yes, but one you managed to omit in your long summary of a Twitter exchange with a SHA-1 researcher, which is why I'm pointing it out. You're seemingly treating "analyzed" as a boolean property.

CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
> Is that a trite point? Yes The next question I would ask myself in this context is, "Should I have even raised the trite point in the first place?"
- avar 7y ago
  It's trite because it should go without saying, but one you managed to selectively omit when summarizing a Twitter discussion. That makes you seem disingenuous. It's clear from anyone who reads that Twitter discussion that the thrust of Marc's point is not that we should be "reinforcing public trust in standards". To summarize the discussion in those terms amounts to attacking a strawman.
  - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
    > the thrust of Marc's point is not that we should be "reinforcing public trust in standards" It isn't? https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/1128330537645563906 https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/11283305376455639... https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/1128332202775863296 https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/11283322027758632... https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/1128378488732438528 https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/11283784887324385... "Marc Stevens wants to reinforce the public trust in standards, especially among non-experts" isn't an uncharitable summary of this conversation. > That makes you seem disingenuous. If I'm mistaken about the point he's defending, it's not an act of dishonesty. Given that he at multiple points agreed with my arguments that standards bodies make dumb mistakes and yet continued to double down on "we should just follow standards anyway" without caveat, there aren't many alternative interpretations that I'm aware of. If I still seem disingenuous, it might be that you want me to seem that way. In which case, there's no point in either of us continuing to participate because it has ceased to be about security and instead has become a discussion of ego, which I'm frankly uninterested in.
    - realhashbreaker 7y ago
      Actually, I did add caveats and do recognize that not all standards are equally important. In the tweets you link I'm talking about secure standards, as in standards that are actually considered secure. But my point was not "just follow standards anyway". This tweet clearly shows that: https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/1128383029255258112?s=09 https://twitter.com/realhashbreaker/status/11283830292552581... Rather that it is better to promote to work through standards as a community as opposed to your way of where individuals promote their pet primitives. Standards serve a role as a focal point: the benefit of being big targets, getting a lot of scrutiny and easier for non-experts to find out if somebody found security issues.
      - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
        Okay, then let's work together to get better standards than the ones currently available.