3 ms·

I've said it elsewhere, but... If I were carrying out this attack against NIST, and it had failed up to now (i.e. they chose 'wrong' from my perspective), my n

by bem94 6y ago

I've said it elsewhere, but... If I were carrying out this attack against NIST, and it had failed up to now (i.e. they chose 'wrong' from my perspective), my next step would surely be to publish something which calls into question the conclusion they came to. This would cause everyone involved to start second guessing, loose confidence in the process, and make it easier to re-mount the attack either now, or in the future. N.b. I assume this document has been written in good faith and with the best of intentions. It's just hard not to see some contradictions mixed up in there.

cryptonector 6y ago
"We're susceptible to process attacks" plus "pointing it out might be an attack on the process" is much much better than not being aware of attacks on the process. Supposing this is DJB attacking the process, well, the other participants can simply find the fly in his ointment, point it out, and stop the attack. It's hard to argue that DJB's paper doesn't represent progress then since we can both, reason about its claims and reason about it being an instance of an attack on the process, whereas prior to this we weren't seriously considering attacks on the process at all.