3 ms·
Scientists have to undergo extremely rigorous peer review from other experts who are massively incentivized to challenge them and show that their results are wr
by matthewdgreen 6y ago
Scientists have to undergo extremely rigorous peer review from other experts who are massively incentivized to challenge them and show that their results are wrong. The individual code may not be reviewed, but spurious results will be noticed and called out.
The closest thing we have to this in industry is bug reporting and software security evaluation, and this is sporadic at best. Most commercial software developers keep their code closed source and do everything they can to stifle public knowledge of bugs, even after they've been fixed.
- thu2111 6y agoWhy are you defending this work Matthew? You have your own reputation to defend as well. This code has never been peer reviewed, ever. That is indisputable because Ferguson has claimed multiple times that the code is/was entirely undocumented, and nobody outside him and his few colleagues understands how it works. The moment it started being actually reviewed, people found a breathtaking number of bugs like out-of-bounds reads, typos in random number generator constants etc. Broken RNGs! Of all things I'd hope an expert in cryptography would be very worried by, a missing digit in an RNG constant should surely be one of them?