4 ms·

That's pretty messed up, guess that's another sombering fact to the pile. I'd have expected that serious security stuff always involves mechanized math proofs e

That's pretty messed up, guess that's another sombering fact to the pile. I'd have expected that serious security stuff always involves mechanized math proofs every step of the way, making such silly mischaracterizations impossible. Not a fun thing to learn that this is not what happens.

matthewdgreen 1y ago
This has been discussed before on HN when it was first published. I don’t remember the resolution years later, but it was discussed on the PQC mailing lists. The missing context here is that many people had submissions and academic rivalries can be very bitter.
I_dream_of_Geni 1y ago
Not only messed up, but I am guessing that there are either politics involved (personal gain, friends of friends, etc), or somebody paid somebody to push Kyber over NTRU. Which is difficult or impossible to prove, ESPECIALLY if that "person" is senator or "other". (Since I failed civics, I have no idea what forces are involved in something like this, but it all sounds really fishy).
- drob518 1y ago
  Senators can’t even spell crypto.
- kragen 1y ago
  Historically the NSA has sabotaged public cryptography standards so that it could crack them, while adversaries hopefully couldn't. It pays its employees to do this. It seems plausible that that's what's going on here, but even if so, whether that's because they know of a fatal weakness in NTRU they fear adversaries will exploit, or know of one in Kyber that they hope to exploit themselves, is anybody's guess.
  - bigfatkitten 1y ago
    NSA makes public their own policy for national security systems. https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/30/2003728741/-1/-1/0/CSA_CNSA_2.0_ALGORITHMS.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/30/2003728741/-1/-1/0/CSA... If the U.S. Government is willing to bet the SECRET-and-above farm on particular cryptography standards and implementations, it’s probably safe for you to use them too.
    - pxeger1 1y ago
      If NSA and only NSA can crack a particular system, they probably wouldn't mind using it for their own secrets. And anyway why is there any reason to believe they really do use the system they say they use?
      - bigfatkitten 1y ago
        > If NSA and only NSA can crack a particular system, they probably wouldn't mind using it for their own secrets. How do you think they could assess that they, and only they will ever be able to exploit a particular cryptographic vulnerability at any time over the next few decades? They can’t, they would be well aware of that, and they are extremely risk averse. > And anyway why is there any reason to believe they really do use the system they say they use? Because these systems exist widely throughout government today. https://www.nsa.gov/Resources/Commercial-Solutions-for-Classified-Program/ https://www.nsa.gov/Resources/Commercial-Solutions-for-Class... https://www.disa.mil/-/media/files/disa/fact-sheets/dmcc-s-factsheet_051220.ashx?la=en&hash=C28DAEC9ABCA49E0DB1619BB2DDCDBACD5C1E297 https://www.disa.mil/-/media/files/disa/fact-sheets/dmcc-s-f...
    - kragen 1y ago
      What they've been doing consistently for the last 50 years counts for more than what they say today.
      - bigfatkitten 1y ago
        They haven’t been using commercial cryptography to protect classified information for 50 years. The fact they are now is a relatively recent development, and it’s significant because they now have their own skin in the game whereas they previously did not.

matthewdgreen 1y ago

This has been discussed before on HN when it was first published. I don’t remember the resolution years later, but it was discussed on the PQC mailing lists. The missing context here is that many people had submissions and academic rivalries can be very bitter.

I_dream_of_Geni 1y ago

Not only messed up, but I am guessing that there are either politics involved (personal gain, friends of friends, etc), or somebody paid somebody to push Kyber over NTRU. Which is difficult or impossible to prove, ESPECIALLY if that "person" is senator or "other". (Since I failed civics, I have no idea what forces are involved in something like this, but it all sounds really fishy).

drob518 1y ago
Senators can’t even spell crypto.
kragen 1y ago
Historically the NSA has sabotaged public cryptography standards so that it could crack them, while adversaries hopefully couldn't. It pays its employees to do this. It seems plausible that that's what's going on here, but even if so, whether that's because they know of a fatal weakness in NTRU they fear adversaries will exploit, or know of one in Kyber that they hope to exploit themselves, is anybody's guess.
- bigfatkitten 1y ago
  NSA makes public their own policy for national security systems. https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/30/2003728741/-1/-1/0/CSA_CNSA_2.0_ALGORITHMS.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/30/2003728741/-1/-1/0/CSA... If the U.S. Government is willing to bet the SECRET-and-above farm on particular cryptography standards and implementations, it’s probably safe for you to use them too.
  - pxeger1 1y ago
    If NSA and only NSA can crack a particular system, they probably wouldn't mind using it for their own secrets. And anyway why is there any reason to believe they really do use the system they say they use?
    - bigfatkitten 1y ago
      > If NSA and only NSA can crack a particular system, they probably wouldn't mind using it for their own secrets. How do you think they could assess that they, and only they will ever be able to exploit a particular cryptographic vulnerability at any time over the next few decades? They can’t, they would be well aware of that, and they are extremely risk averse. > And anyway why is there any reason to believe they really do use the system they say they use? Because these systems exist widely throughout government today. https://www.nsa.gov/Resources/Commercial-Solutions-for-Classified-Program/ https://www.nsa.gov/Resources/Commercial-Solutions-for-Class... https://www.disa.mil/-/media/files/disa/fact-sheets/dmcc-s-factsheet_051220.ashx?la=en&hash=C28DAEC9ABCA49E0DB1619BB2DDCDBACD5C1E297 https://www.disa.mil/-/media/files/disa/fact-sheets/dmcc-s-f...
  - kragen 1y ago
    What they've been doing consistently for the last 50 years counts for more than what they say today.
    - bigfatkitten 1y ago
      They haven’t been using commercial cryptography to protect classified information for 50 years. The fact they are now is a relatively recent development, and it’s significant because they now have their own skin in the game whereas they previously did not.