5 ms·

Wasn’t it that NIST was unwittingly tricked into accepting the NSA’s expertise while the NSA maliciously provided that expertise in bad faith? And didn’t they

Wasn’t it that NIST was unwittingly tricked into accepting the NSA’s expertise while the NSA maliciously provided that expertise in bad faith? And didn’t they subsequently ban the NSA from their input once the Snowden leaks were out? So I don’t think it’s fair to disregard NIST completely. And the international counterparts can compare & perform their own due diligence

capableweb 4y ago
> Wasn’t it that NIST was unwittingly tricked into accepting the NSA’s expertise while the NSA maliciously provided that expertise in bad faith? Not sure if that's better or worse than them collaborating directly. Edit: from a paper linked in another comment: > Researchers raised concerns to NIST about both possible bias in the bits and a possible backdoor in Dual_EC_DRBG. NIST examined the issue. NSA dismissed NIST's concerns, responding that implementers could choose their own parameters to handle concerns about possible backdoors. NSA pressed NIST to standardize the algorithm, claiming that it needed FIPS validation of agency devices running Dual_EC_DRBG, and thus NIST approved Dual_EC_DRBG as one of four possible standardized random-bit generators. Dual_EC_DRBG remained a FIPS until shortly after the 2013 revelation of an NSA backdoor in a cryptographic algorithm. https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/06/Vol13Iss2_Kostyuk-Landau_Dual-EC-DRGB.pdf https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/06/V... So seems NIST and others were aware of the shortcomings of Dual_EC_DRBG but was pressured by NSA to end up as a FIPS anyway. Either way, hard to start trusting NIST again after a fiasco like that. > And didn’t they subsequently ban the NSA from their input once the Snowden leaks were out? AFAIK, NSA didn't submit anything for this competition, but bunch of mathematicians from NSA have worked on helping NIST with the overall process of the competition, including reviewing the entries. It wouldn't surprise me that if NSA found something, they would withhold any findings if they could benefit from being the only ones knowing about any holes. Although we all know how that ends. > And the international counterparts can compare & perform their own due diligence Yes, this is exactly what I'm asking for, the purpose of my initial comment. Who are these international counterparts that I can look to instead of NIST?
- Terry_Roll 4y ago
  > It wouldn't surprise me that if NSA found something, they would withhold any findings if they could benefit from being the only ones knowing about any holes. Although we all know how that ends. I think you would be correct and do you know that ends?
- drunkenmagician 4y ago
  > Not sure if that's better or worse than them collaborating directly. Well, one is an issue of competency or at the very least experience. The other is an issue of ethics. I'll take a competency concerns over ethical ones any day.

capableweb 4y ago

> Wasn’t it that NIST was unwittingly tricked into accepting the NSA’s expertise while the NSA maliciously provided that expertise in bad faith? Not sure if that's better or worse than them collaborating directly. Edit: from a paper linked in another comment: > Researchers raised concerns to NIST about both possible bias in the bits and a possible backdoor in Dual_EC_DRBG. NIST examined the issue. NSA dismissed NIST's concerns, responding that implementers could choose their own parameters to handle concerns about possible backdoors. NSA pressed NIST to standardize the algorithm, claiming that it needed FIPS validation of agency devices running Dual_EC_DRBG, and thus NIST approved Dual_EC_DRBG as one of four possible standardized random-bit generators. Dual_EC_DRBG remained a FIPS until shortly after the 2013 revelation of an NSA backdoor in a cryptographic algorithm. https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/06/Vol13Iss2_Kostyuk-Landau_Dual-EC-DRGB.pdf https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2022/06/V... So seems NIST and others were aware of the shortcomings of Dual_EC_DRBG but was pressured by NSA to end up as a FIPS anyway. Either way, hard to start trusting NIST again after a fiasco like that. > And didn’t they subsequently ban the NSA from their input once the Snowden leaks were out? AFAIK, NSA didn't submit anything for this competition, but bunch of mathematicians from NSA have worked on helping NIST with the overall process of the competition, including reviewing the entries. It wouldn't surprise me that if NSA found something, they would withhold any findings if they could benefit from being the only ones knowing about any holes. Although we all know how that ends. > And the international counterparts can compare & perform their own due diligence Yes, this is exactly what I'm asking for, the purpose of my initial comment. Who are these international counterparts that I can look to instead of NIST?

Terry_Roll 4y ago
> It wouldn't surprise me that if NSA found something, they would withhold any findings if they could benefit from being the only ones knowing about any holes. Although we all know how that ends. I think you would be correct and do you know that ends?
drunkenmagician 4y ago
> Not sure if that's better or worse than them collaborating directly. Well, one is an issue of competency or at the very least experience. The other is an issue of ethics. I'll take a competency concerns over ethical ones any day.