3 ms·
Remember that the entities most likely to heed those governments recommendations are those providing services to said government and its military. I feel like
by FiloSottile 6mo ago
Remember that the entities most likely to heed those governments recommendations are those providing services to said government and its military.
I feel like the NSA pushing a (definitely misguided and obviously later exploited by adversaries) NOBUS backdoor has poorly percolated into the collective consciousness, missing the NOBUS part entirely.
See https://keymaterial.net/2025/11/27/ml-kem-mythbusting/ https://keymaterial.net/2025/11/27/ml-kem-mythbusting/ for whether the current standards can hide NOBUS backdoors. It talks about ML-KEM, but all recent standards I read look like this.
- adgjlsfhk1 6mo agoIMO the idea that NSA only uses NOBUS backdoors is obviously false (see for example DES's 56 bit key size). The NSA is perfectly capable of publicly calling for an insecure algorithm and then having secret documentation to not use it for anything important.
- bawolff 6mo ago> see for example DES's 56 bit key size In fairness, that was from 1975. I don't particularly trust the NSA, but i dont think things they did half a century ago is a great way to extrapolate their current interests.
- raron 6mo agoAFAIK they did a lot of illegal things in the Snowden-era, too.
- FiloSottile 6mo agoDES is the algorithms that was secretly modified by the NSA to protect it against differential cryptanalysis. Capping a key size is hardly a "backdoor." Also, that was the time of export ciphers and Suite A vs Suite B, which were very explicit about there being different algorithms for US NatSec vs. everything else. This time there's only CNSA 2.0, which is pure ML-KEM and ML-DSA. So no, there is no history of the NSA pushing non-NOBUS backdoors into NatSec algorithms.