3 ms·
Given what we know about the NSA, do you have to be 'cynical'? I think a backdoor is even likely.
by monkeynotes 7y ago
Given what we know about the NSA, do you have to be 'cynical'? I think a backdoor is even likely.
- commandlinefan 7y agoKoblitz and Menenez took a long look at that - they believe it's possible, but not necessarily likely: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1018.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1018.pdf
- monkeynotes 7y agoGiven the known motivations of the NSA, and the deep involvement they had in designing and promoting SHA and its derivatives gives reasonable doubt to their benevolent credibility. Look at the amount of trouble the NSA went into to create Stuxnet. They stole digitally signed certificates from big corporations, completely undetected. If a known burglar installed your home security system, even if the security system was from a well known and trusted manufacturer would you trust that your house was actually secure while you were on vacation?
- tptacek 7y agoWhat's this supposed to mean? SHA-2, which is an NSA design, is one of the best cryptographic hashes we have. SHA-1 fell, but so did MD4 and MD5, the other mainstream hashes of that era.
- opportune 7y agoThe NSA might have a big quantum computer and know that they are the only ones who are even close, hence pushing people towards RSA
- johncolanduoni 7y agoECC is vulnerable to Shor’s algorithm as well.
- opportune 7y agoAhh ok, interesting. I stand corrected