4 ms·

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.

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
      I'm people who denied that Dual EC was a backdoor (my position wasn't an unusual one; it was that Dual EC was too stupid to actually use, which made it an unlikely backdoor). Dan Bernstein didn't educate me about that; like anybody else who held that position, the moment I learned that real products in the industry were built with libraries that defaulted to Dual EC, the jig was up. I'm honest about what I'm saying and what I've said. You are not meeting the same bar. For instance, here you're insinuating that my problem on this thread is that I think NIST is good, or trustworthy, or that NSA would never have the audacity to try to bribe anybody. Of course, none of that is true. I don't know how seriously you expect anybody to take you. You wrote 13-paragraph comment on this thread based on Filippo's use of an "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia Meme", saying that it was a parody of "A Beautiful Mind", which is about John Nash, who was mentally ill, and also an anti-semite, ergo Filippo Valsorda is an anti-semite who punches down at the mentally ill. It's right there for everybody to read.
      - NohatCoder 4y ago
        How could any serious security researcher have been in doubt about Dual EC? The design did not not make any sense at all. Not until you consider that it is designed with a back door, then it is a sleek minimal design that does exactly what it needs to do and not a whole lot more. If you couldn't see that from a mile away, then you might be too naive to work in security.
        tptacek 4y ago
- daneel_w 4y ago
- armitron 4y ago
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I'm pretty comfortable with the people who do and don't take me seriously.

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
    I'm people who denied that Dual EC was a backdoor (my position wasn't an unusual one; it was that Dual EC was too stupid to actually use, which made it an unlikely backdoor). Dan Bernstein didn't educate me about that; like anybody else who held that position, the moment I learned that real products in the industry were built with libraries that defaulted to Dual EC, the jig was up. I'm honest about what I'm saying and what I've said. You are not meeting the same bar. For instance, here you're insinuating that my problem on this thread is that I think NIST is good, or trustworthy, or that NSA would never have the audacity to try to bribe anybody. Of course, none of that is true. I don't know how seriously you expect anybody to take you. You wrote 13-paragraph comment on this thread based on Filippo's use of an "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia Meme", saying that it was a parody of "A Beautiful Mind", which is about John Nash, who was mentally ill, and also an anti-semite, ergo Filippo Valsorda is an anti-semite who punches down at the mentally ill. It's right there for everybody to read.
    - NohatCoder 4y ago
      How could any serious security researcher have been in doubt about Dual EC? The design did not not make any sense at all. Not until you consider that it is designed with a back door, then it is a sleek minimal design that does exactly what it needs to do and not a whole lot more. If you couldn't see that from a mile away, then you might be too naive to work in security.
      - tptacek 4y ago
daneel_w 4y ago
armitron 4y ago
- tptacek 4y ago
  I'm pretty comfortable with the people who do and don't take me seriously.