5 ms·

> I believe the implication that NIST or NSA somehow bribed one of the PQC researchers to weaken a submission is risible. Is that even a claim here? I'm on mob

> I believe the implication that NIST or NSA somehow bribed one of the PQC researchers to weaken a submission is risible. Is that even a claim here? I'm on mobile right now so it's a bit hard for me to trawl through the DJB/NIST dialogue, but I thought his main complaint is that NIST didn't appear to have a proper and clear process for choosing the algorithms they did, when arguably better algorithms were available. So the suggestion wouldn't necessarily be that one of the respected contestants was bribed or otherwise compromised, but rather that NIST may have been tapped on the shoulder by NSA (again) with the suggestion that they should pick a specific algorithm, and that NSA would make the suggestion they have because their own cryptographers ("true believers" on NSA payroll) have discovered flaws in those suggested algorithms that they believe NSA can exploit but hopefully not adversaries can exploit. There's no need for any novel conspiracies or corruption; merely an exact repeat of previous NSA/NIST behaviour consistent with NSA policy positions. It's simultaneously about as banal as it gets, and deeply troubling because of that.

tptacek 4y ago
It is indeed a claim here; in fact, it's probably the principle claim.
- monocasa 4y ago
  I guess I'm not reading it that way. In fact, a FOIA request is going after official records, which I wouldn't expect would contain outright bribery. Yes, DJB brings up their known bribing of RSA wrt to the whole Dual-EC thing. But my read of that bit of info was the more general 'here's evidence that the NSA actively commits funding towards infecting standards' rather than 'the NSA's playbook just contains outright bribery and that's what we expect to find in the FOIA requests given to NIST'.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    The FOIA issue is 100% legitimate. NIST is required to comply with FOIA.
    - what-imright 4y ago
      You don’t get it clearly. They’re playing dirty. At best the FOIA will receive a document made on the fly with nothing of value. The rules don’t apply to the NSA. You can do exactly nothing. But NIST, you can do something about - reject any standard they approve. It’s your choice what algorithm you use, and we know NIST will select a broken algorithm for the NSA, so just ignore their ‘standard’. The best solution is using layers of crypto, trusting no single algorithm.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        You should tell Bernstein that! Your logic implies he's wasting his time with the suit.
        simsla 4y ago
        "You shouldn't fight because the baddies are strong!" is a horrible argument in my book. Discouraging and disparaging other people's attempts is even worse.
        what-imright 4y ago
        I’m not saying don’t fight. I’m saying don’t let your opponent define the rules of the game.
        what-imright 4y ago
        he is
- _notreallyme_ 4y ago
  The actual claim is that NSA may have already spent a lot of time and effort to analyse PQC algorithm underlying problems without making their findings public. DJB seems to suspect that they may influence NIST to select algorithms and parameters within the range of what they already know how to break.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Huh? Of course NSA spent a lot of time and effort analyzing algorithms without making their findings public. That is their literal job. The peer review NIST is refereeing happened in the open. When people broke SIDH, they didn't whisper it anyone's ear: they published a paper. That's how this stuff works. Bernstein doesn't have a paper to show you; all he has is innuendo. How you know his argument is as limp as a cooked spaghetti noodle is that he actually stoops to suggesting that NSA might have bribed one of the members of the PQC teams. If he had something real to say, he wouldn't have embarrassed himself like that. How I think I know that is, I think any reasonable person would go way out of their way to avoid such an embarrassing claim, absent extraordinary evidence, of which he's presented none.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - vasco 4y ago
      > he actually stoops to suggesting that NSA might have bribed one of the members of the PQC teams I don't know anyone in the teams to judge their moral fiber, but I'm 100% sure the NSA is not above what is suggested and your weird outrage at the suggestion seems surprising knowing what is public knowledge about how the NSA operates. There are arguments here about NSA pressure on NIST. You miss the point because apparently you're offended that someone suggested your friends can be bribed. I mean, maybe they can't, but this is about the NSA being corrupt, not the researchers.
      - throwaway654329 4y ago
        It can be everybody involved. It should include NIST based on the history alone. Some of the commentary on this topic is by people who also denied DUAL_EC until (correctly) conceding that it was actually a backdoor, actually deployed, and that it is embarrassing for both NSA and NIST. This sometimes looks like reactionary denialism. It’s a safe position that forces others to do a lot of work, it seems good faith with some people and not so much with others.

tptacek 4y ago

It is indeed a claim here; in fact, it's probably the principle claim.

monocasa 4y ago
I guess I'm not reading it that way. In fact, a FOIA request is going after official records, which I wouldn't expect would contain outright bribery. Yes, DJB brings up their known bribing of RSA wrt to the whole Dual-EC thing. But my read of that bit of info was the more general 'here's evidence that the NSA actively commits funding towards infecting standards' rather than 'the NSA's playbook just contains outright bribery and that's what we expect to find in the FOIA requests given to NIST'.
- tptacek 4y ago
  The FOIA issue is 100% legitimate. NIST is required to comply with FOIA.
  - what-imright 4y ago
    You don’t get it clearly. They’re playing dirty. At best the FOIA will receive a document made on the fly with nothing of value. The rules don’t apply to the NSA. You can do exactly nothing. But NIST, you can do something about - reject any standard they approve. It’s your choice what algorithm you use, and we know NIST will select a broken algorithm for the NSA, so just ignore their ‘standard’. The best solution is using layers of crypto, trusting no single algorithm.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      You should tell Bernstein that! Your logic implies he's wasting his time with the suit.
      - simsla 4y ago
        "You shouldn't fight because the baddies are strong!" is a horrible argument in my book. Discouraging and disparaging other people's attempts is even worse.
        what-imright 4y ago
        I’m not saying don’t fight. I’m saying don’t let your opponent define the rules of the game.
      - what-imright 4y ago
        he is
_notreallyme_ 4y ago
The actual claim is that NSA may have already spent a lot of time and effort to analyse PQC algorithm underlying problems without making their findings public. DJB seems to suspect that they may influence NIST to select algorithms and parameters within the range of what they already know how to break.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Huh? Of course NSA spent a lot of time and effort analyzing algorithms without making their findings public. That is their literal job. The peer review NIST is refereeing happened in the open. When people broke SIDH, they didn't whisper it anyone's ear: they published a paper. That's how this stuff works. Bernstein doesn't have a paper to show you; all he has is innuendo. How you know his argument is as limp as a cooked spaghetti noodle is that he actually stoops to suggesting that NSA might have bribed one of the members of the PQC teams. If he had something real to say, he wouldn't have embarrassed himself like that. How I think I know that is, I think any reasonable person would go way out of their way to avoid such an embarrassing claim, absent extraordinary evidence, of which he's presented none.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - vasco 4y ago
    > he actually stoops to suggesting that NSA might have bribed one of the members of the PQC teams I don't know anyone in the teams to judge their moral fiber, but I'm 100% sure the NSA is not above what is suggested and your weird outrage at the suggestion seems surprising knowing what is public knowledge about how the NSA operates. There are arguments here about NSA pressure on NIST. You miss the point because apparently you're offended that someone suggested your friends can be bribed. I mean, maybe they can't, but this is about the NSA being corrupt, not the researchers.
    - throwaway654329 4y ago
      It can be everybody involved. It should include NIST based on the history alone. Some of the commentary on this topic is by people who also denied DUAL_EC until (correctly) conceding that it was actually a backdoor, actually deployed, and that it is embarrassing for both NSA and NIST. This sometimes looks like reactionary denialism. It’s a safe position that forces others to do a lot of work, it seems good faith with some people and not so much with others.