4 ms·

Don't rush to improve chicken coop, warns local fox

by cwmma 7y ago

ryanisnan 7y ago
Great metaphor. I hope the right people (academics, crypto authors, etc.) don't get deterred from reviewing this in earnest, but for lay people like myself, I cannot help but feel as you do.
PrefixKitten 7y ago
If by fox you mean a sexy lady then hey I'll leave the door unlocked ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (just to clarify, this is intended as a serious comment meant to draw attention to the relevance of language ambiguity to computer science)
jakemal 7y ago
It's an intentionally misleading title to get clicks. The actual context of the quote refers to the fact that encryption methods built in too much of a rush may introduce other vulnerabilities. This article has no substance or constructive purpose.
paulddraper 7y ago
You've got to give them enough time to dig a tunnel underneath.
strbean 7y ago
I read this title as "NSA thinks they are getting close to enough qbits to mount real attacks, please don't switch to PQC before we get a return on our investment!" In other news, your totally-trustworthy not-at-all-compromised neighborhood NIST is working on new PQC algs!
- wil421 7y ago
  If this was the case why does the NSA issue warnings about things from time to time?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Because by then other intelligence agencies or mere commoners can also break the crypto.
ledauphin 7y ago
I feel like the irony here is that, assuming the director of the NSA is even minimally self-aware, there's actually no way for me to know whether this is: a) an attempt to prevent me from using encryption they can't yet break - or - b) reverse-psychology, assuming that a halfway intelligent person would guess this was a case of A, therefore prematurely switching to an untested quantum crypto that they might actually have an _easier_ time breaking. and honestly, either way I'm left with no actionable information.
- ENOTTY 7y ago
  Why not a third option, that the research director of the NSA is giving her honest informed opinion?
  - tremon 7y ago
    Because that would be ignoring over 25 years of documented history.
- abhayb 7y ago
  Both are true because this is a government official. A key skill for a government official is to communicate in a way that gives no information to people who disagree with them. This is a sensible adaptation to their conditions. You disagree with this government official. And for that reason you gain no information from them.
- vardump 7y ago
  How about c) making NSA's adversaries nervous by indirectly suggesting that they might be able to break current crypto and monitoring how different parties sending encrypted traffic react to this "information" to discover interesting/high value targets? Side channel information exposure attack against human targets.

Don't rush to improve chicken coop, warns local fox

by cwmma 7y ago

Don't rush to improve chicken coop, warns local fox

Great metaphor. I hope the right people (academics, crypto authors, etc.) don't get deterred from reviewing this in earnest, but for lay people like myself, I cannot help but feel as you do.

PrefixKitten 7y ago

If by fox you mean a sexy lady then hey I'll leave the door unlocked ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (just to clarify, this is intended as a serious comment meant to draw attention to the relevance of language ambiguity to computer science)

jakemal 7y ago

It's an intentionally misleading title to get clicks. The actual context of the quote refers to the fact that encryption methods built in too much of a rush may introduce other vulnerabilities. This article has no substance or constructive purpose.

paulddraper 7y ago

You've got to give them enough time to dig a tunnel underneath.

strbean 7y ago

I read this title as "NSA thinks they are getting close to enough qbits to mount real attacks, please don't switch to PQC before we get a return on our investment!" In other news, your totally-trustworthy not-at-all-compromised neighborhood NIST is working on new PQC algs!

wil421 7y ago
If this was the case why does the NSA issue warnings about things from time to time?
- adrianN 7y ago
  Because by then other intelligence agencies or mere commoners can also break the crypto.

ledauphin 7y ago

I feel like the irony here is that, assuming the director of the NSA is even minimally self-aware, there's actually no way for me to know whether this is: a) an attempt to prevent me from using encryption they can't yet break - or - b) reverse-psychology, assuming that a halfway intelligent person would guess this was a case of A, therefore prematurely switching to an untested quantum crypto that they might actually have an _easier_ time breaking. and honestly, either way I'm left with no actionable information.

ENOTTY 7y ago
Why not a third option, that the research director of the NSA is giving her honest informed opinion?
- tremon 7y ago
  Because that would be ignoring over 25 years of documented history.
abhayb 7y ago
Both are true because this is a government official. A key skill for a government official is to communicate in a way that gives no information to people who disagree with them. This is a sensible adaptation to their conditions. You disagree with this government official. And for that reason you gain no information from them.
vardump 7y ago
How about c) making NSA's adversaries nervous by indirectly suggesting that they might be able to break current crypto and monitoring how different parties sending encrypted traffic react to this "information" to discover interesting/high value targets? Side channel information exposure attack against human targets.