4 ms·
Security experts don’t consider this a valid excuse anymore. The first task was making encryption primitives that are secure when used perfectly— it took a whil
by Analemma_ 2y ago
Security experts don’t consider this a valid excuse anymore. The first task was making encryption primitives that are secure when used perfectly— it took a while, but we’ve pretty much done that: nobody expects a serious break in e.g. AES any time soon. But the next task after that is making crypto systems that are free of footguns and as hard as possible to misuse, especially when wrapped in layers of libraries, which in practice they always are.
This is what’s phasing out RSA, for example— it is possible to use RSA in a completely secure way, but it’s very easy to get it wrong and it can fail catastrophically when you do. PGP has the same problem: yes, it can be used securely, but that’s not sufficient in 2024.
- palata 2y ago> PGP has the same problem: yes, it can be used securely, but that’s not sufficient in 2024. Does that justify saying "it sucks shit", though? Especially considering that it was written in 1991, and not in 2024? I feel like I don't regularly read blog posts from aerospace engineers that sound like "The Apollo mission sucked shit. Those morons had no idea what they were doing. We younger aerospace engineers who have not had a fraction of the impact Apollo did have been saying it for years: use our new stuff because we are the smart ones".