4 ms·

If the straightforwardly checkable claims in what DJB wrote are correct (which I have not checked) then I have trouble seeing how Peikert could be blameless, th

by gjm11 5y ago

If the straightforwardly checkable claims in what DJB wrote are correct (which I have not checked) then I have trouble seeing how Peikert could be blameless, though he could certainly be less consciously and deliberately deceptive than DJB is representing him as. E.g., I think the following scenario is consistent with all DJB's straightforwardly checkable claims: Peikert did see Ding's 2012 paper, or at least its 2014 revision, but didn't read it carefully and didn't appreciate that it meant Ding had anticipated Peikert's innovations by 2 years; Peikert's subsequent writing on the subject is misleading but not intended to deceive. And, of course, if DJB is wrong on some of the straightforwardly checkable claims, all bets are off. DJB is opinionated and iconoclastic, for sure, but I wouldn't generally expect him to make claims that are flatly false. E.g., if he says that Ding (2012) does basically all the important things that Peikert (2014) does then I would expect that to be correct. But I don't know the Bernstein/Peikert history, and even generally reliable people can go badly wrong when it comes to people they really hate...

kragen 5y ago
Bernstein is generally careful to make only claims that he knows to be correct. Presumably Peikert will see this post and will either not respond publicly, or respond. If he responds publicly he will either deny or affirm Bernstein's claims. If he does not respond, he is being consciously and deliberately deceptive. If he affirms Bernstein's claims, he was being consciously and deliberately deceptive in the past. If he denies Bernstein's claims, then either they are correct or not. If they are correct, then his denial is just more of the kind of deception Bernstein caught him at. If they are incorrect, then Bernstein is the one at fault.
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  DJB regularly makes false claims on the relevant pqc mailing list; it has at various points devolved to him making false claims about lattice-crypto security, and various cryptographers correcting him.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  Frankly Peikert shouldn't respond to such accusations. He should go to the IACR and Dan's department chair and take them up there. Most likely what he will do is continue the extensive discussion both parties have had on the PQC mailing list. But of course the general public doesn't read the PQC mailing list: where the actual experts in this area communicate. And Dan knows this. That's why he posted this set of accusations on a blog that has a general audience, knowing full well that Peikert won't be able to defend himself to the same people. When you say "If [Peikert] does not respond, he is being consciously and deliberately deceptive" you captured precisely the problem with writing this post: it makes a bunch of weak, unsupported allegations against Peikert in a forum where most readers can't judge the evidence and Peikert can't respond. It's incredibly dishonest -- and its a matter of public concern, since I believe Dan's post is consistent with a pattern of bullying and intimidation of researchers who criticize his NIST proposals on scientific grounds.
  - kragen 5y ago
    Are you saying Peikert shouldn't respond to such accusations even if they're true? Do you think there is no legitimate public interest in whether Peikert committed plagiarism? I think there is a legitimate public interest in understanding why PQC hasn't been widely adopted.
matthewdgreen 5y ago
I’m not really sure what the purpose of this article is except to escalate a long-running feud between DJB and Peikert in a totally inappropriate way. For context: Dan has a submission to NIST’s PQC competition that has been criticized by Chris (who has a much deeper background in lattice crypto.) This kind of critical back and forth is normally a good thing, as long as it stays within the bounds of polite academic discourse. Unfortunately it has become extremely hostile and personal. To see this escalate further with Dan writing a long blog post making tenuous plagiarism accusations is just incredibly dismaying. TL;DR: people frequently miss works that are published only on ePrint servers. It appears that Peikert cited the work in a later draft and Dan disagrees with the citation. I can’t tell you whether the techniques are different: this isn’t my research area. However Dan even acknowledges that the distributions of the shared secret are different (as Peikert acknowledges in his work), but then claims this doesn’t matter in common applications. I’m not here to adjudicate what seems to be a minor question of presentation, but I would like to see much more care around something as serious as a plagiarism accusation, particularly given the personal rancor between these two.

by gjm11 5y ago

kragen 5y ago

Bernstein is generally careful to make only claims that he knows to be correct. Presumably Peikert will see this post and will either not respond publicly, or respond. If he responds publicly he will either deny or affirm Bernstein's claims. If he does not respond, he is being consciously and deliberately deceptive. If he affirms Bernstein's claims, he was being consciously and deliberately deceptive in the past. If he denies Bernstein's claims, then either they are correct or not. If they are correct, then his denial is just more of the kind of deception Bernstein caught him at. If they are incorrect, then Bernstein is the one at fault.

Ar-Curunir 5y ago
DJB regularly makes false claims on the relevant pqc mailing list; it has at various points devolved to him making false claims about lattice-crypto security, and various cryptographers correcting him.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
matthewdgreen 5y ago
Frankly Peikert shouldn't respond to such accusations. He should go to the IACR and Dan's department chair and take them up there. Most likely what he will do is continue the extensive discussion both parties have had on the PQC mailing list. But of course the general public doesn't read the PQC mailing list: where the actual experts in this area communicate. And Dan knows this. That's why he posted this set of accusations on a blog that has a general audience, knowing full well that Peikert won't be able to defend himself to the same people. When you say "If [Peikert] does not respond, he is being consciously and deliberately deceptive" you captured precisely the problem with writing this post: it makes a bunch of weak, unsupported allegations against Peikert in a forum where most readers can't judge the evidence and Peikert can't respond. It's incredibly dishonest -- and its a matter of public concern, since I believe Dan's post is consistent with a pattern of bullying and intimidation of researchers who criticize his NIST proposals on scientific grounds.
- kragen 5y ago
  Are you saying Peikert shouldn't respond to such accusations even if they're true? Do you think there is no legitimate public interest in whether Peikert committed plagiarism? I think there is a legitimate public interest in understanding why PQC hasn't been widely adopted.

matthewdgreen 5y ago

I’m not really sure what the purpose of this article is except to escalate a long-running feud between DJB and Peikert in a totally inappropriate way. For context: Dan has a submission to NIST’s PQC competition that has been criticized by Chris (who has a much deeper background in lattice crypto.) This kind of critical back and forth is normally a good thing, as long as it stays within the bounds of polite academic discourse. Unfortunately it has become extremely hostile and personal. To see this escalate further with Dan writing a long blog post making tenuous plagiarism accusations is just incredibly dismaying. TL;DR: people frequently miss works that are published only on ePrint servers. It appears that Peikert cited the work in a later draft and Dan disagrees with the citation. I can’t tell you whether the techniques are different: this isn’t my research area. However Dan even acknowledges that the distributions of the shared secret are different (as Peikert acknowledges in his work), but then claims this doesn’t matter in common applications. I’m not here to adjudicate what seems to be a minor question of presentation, but I would like to see much more care around something as serious as a plagiarism accusation, particularly given the personal rancor between these two.