3 ms·
Again you responded to a position I havent taken. My argument was about who holds procedural power in standards bodies, given that some of the significant parti
by libroot 2mo ago
Again you responded to a position I havent taken. My argument was about who holds procedural power in standards bodies, given that some of the significant participants (NSA & GCHQ) have funded programs with hundreds of millions of $ per year to make deployed cryptography exploitable. And DES and Dual EC and others are what that looks like when it succeeds.
- tptacek 2mo agoIt sounds like what's actually happening here is you're fleeing to an abstraction after acknolwedging that (a) NSA couldn't have had a hand in designing MLKEM and (b) that nobody at IETF is advocating against hybrids --- indeed, it's literally the opposite. But now it's about Ethics In Games Journalism. The problem with your claim that there's a corrupt institutional process --- apart from knowing who the people are behind this "institution" and finding it risible that any of them are taking cues from NIST, let alone NSA --- is that the institutional is already delivering the outcome you say you favor: default, Recommended=Y, standards track hybrid constructions, the ones used by all mainstream software with PQC.
- libroot 2mo ago[dead]