4 ms·

The real problem is that security decisions are being made by bureaucrats. Full stop. Bureaucracy invariably requires compliance, and only compliance. Some pro

The real problem is that security decisions are being made by bureaucrats. Full stop. Bureaucracy invariably requires compliance, and only compliance. Some problems can be cast in terms of compliance and thus solved in a bureaucracy, but security is not and never will be one them.

CyanLite4 6y ago
Are you saying the auditors are the bureaucracy or the FIPS standards approvers are the bureaucracy? All the auditors are saying is that you have to use a FIPS approved algorithm. The FIPS people have real cryptography experts who research this stuff on a daily basis that also help set the security standards for the entire U.S. government. The author is coming along here saying they are using something else that’s not approved by FIPS (for good reason I might add) and they’re mad the auditors won’t let them simply because “everyone else is using bcrypt”.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  > Are you saying the auditors are the bureaucracy or the FIPS standards approvers are the bureaucracy? Both. > All the auditors are saying is that you have to use a FIPS approved algorithm. ... which is a problem, because FIPS approved doesn’t imply secure. Bcrypt is a better password hashing algorithm than any FIPS-approved algorithm at this time. Don’t agree with me? Read up on it. I’m not necessarily recommending it though - there are others that may be even better, depending on the circumstance. > they are using something else that’s not approved by FIPS (for good reason I might add) What reason? Is there an expert cryptographer’s opinion or any expert cracking reports you can reference? Just because a group of experts decided a certain list of algos were “approved” several years ago doesn’t mean that newer algos designed or popularized since then are less secure. Authority alone doesn’t confer reality or truth. And unlike compliance, security is a process, not a destination.
dkarl 6y ago
Bureaucrats track compliance. People who know security and bureaucracy (ideally) design the standards. Engineers are still responsible for building secure systems that happen to also check all the compliance boxes. Compliance is mostly intended to prevent really hideous errors from falling through the cracks. Nobody believes that you can't build a compliant, insecure system, or that you can't build a secure, non-compliant system.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Agreed, this is the unfortunate truth at present. Though by preventing hideous errors from falling through the cracks, compliance requirements also often prevent the best decisions from being made.

CyanLite4 6y ago

Are you saying the auditors are the bureaucracy or the FIPS standards approvers are the bureaucracy? All the auditors are saying is that you have to use a FIPS approved algorithm. The FIPS people have real cryptography experts who research this stuff on a daily basis that also help set the security standards for the entire U.S. government. The author is coming along here saying they are using something else that’s not approved by FIPS (for good reason I might add) and they’re mad the auditors won’t let them simply because “everyone else is using bcrypt”.

TimTheTinker 6y ago
> Are you saying the auditors are the bureaucracy or the FIPS standards approvers are the bureaucracy? Both. > All the auditors are saying is that you have to use a FIPS approved algorithm. ... which is a problem, because FIPS approved doesn’t imply secure. Bcrypt is a better password hashing algorithm than any FIPS-approved algorithm at this time. Don’t agree with me? Read up on it. I’m not necessarily recommending it though - there are others that may be even better, depending on the circumstance. > they are using something else that’s not approved by FIPS (for good reason I might add) What reason? Is there an expert cryptographer’s opinion or any expert cracking reports you can reference? Just because a group of experts decided a certain list of algos were “approved” several years ago doesn’t mean that newer algos designed or popularized since then are less secure. Authority alone doesn’t confer reality or truth. And unlike compliance, security is a process, not a destination.

dkarl 6y ago

Bureaucrats track compliance. People who know security and bureaucracy (ideally) design the standards. Engineers are still responsible for building secure systems that happen to also check all the compliance boxes. Compliance is mostly intended to prevent really hideous errors from falling through the cracks. Nobody believes that you can't build a compliant, insecure system, or that you can't build a secure, non-compliant system.

TimTheTinker 6y ago
Agreed, this is the unfortunate truth at present. Though by preventing hideous errors from falling through the cracks, compliance requirements also often prevent the best decisions from being made.