4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG

• acdha 3y ago
  Yes, that’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Even when they tried to subvert a cryptographic primitive, notice how they designed it in such a way that they could exploit it but other parties could not? Even making the attempt was unacceptable but I will say it’s categorically different than leaving an open source vulnerability unpatched. If they weren’t the ones who created it, they wouldn’t have noticed but not reported it – even our closest allies aren’t trusted with root on government servers.
  • lamontcg 3y ago
    Think you've got that backwards, there's nothing fundamental about Dual_EC_DRBG that prevents anyone else exploiting it, while the xz vulnerability is gated with a specific private key.
    • acdha 3y ago
      Same story with the constants in Dual EC: http://rump2007.cr.yp.to/15-shumow.pdf http://rump2007.cr.yp.to/15-shumow.pdf The xz vulnerability is exactly the same in that guarded sense, so I’d be completely unsurprised if the NSA was behind it but I don’t think they’d otherwise help keep it quiet. Even if it was another Fives Eyes country it’s hard to imagine them being okay with that level of risk.