3 ms·
> That says more about FIPS than it does this work It would be nice to have companies collectively reject FIPS. I realize that that's a pipe dream, but we do i
by staticassertion 4y ago
> That says more about FIPS than it does this work
It would be nice to have companies collectively reject FIPS. I realize that that's a pipe dream, but we do it with patents. Lots of companies pool their patents to defend against trolls on the condition that none of those companies sue each other over patent violations.
If a bunch of companies were like "We won't require you to be FIPS, and we won't get FIPS" or something that'd be cool. Unfortunately, that can't happen with FIPS specifically as it's government mandated, but idk, maybe SOC2 or something?
I hate things so much
- throwaway654329 4y agoFIPS is a sign that it’s hard for other people (except the Chinese in the Juniper/OPM case) and possible, likely easy, for NSA. No American should mind, they obviously have your best interests in mind. Unless you filled out an SF-86 form that was stolen from the nice folks at OPM. Whoops.
- bobdvb 4y agoMany organisations need standards, they need formally defined things to point at and say 'make me one of those'. It doesn't always have to be the best, it doesn't always have to be the easiest, but without standards you have a moving target. You might say that a particular library is great and so we'll just specify that. But the problem there is you get into dependency hell and maintenance issues. When you can point to specifications that define behaviour and algorithms, rather than code, you reduce those issues. Folk who've not had a good experience of standards tend not to appreciate the benefits they bring and yet so much in your life to this point has been defined by work done on standards. Proprietary standards and trends are what tends to lead towards closed ecosystems that don't benefit consumers.