2 ms·

I suppose that was a bit presumptuous of me. My apologies. The whole spiel has made several rounds on HN, though [1], and Ars reported again on the matter abou

by ReidZB 13y ago

I suppose that was a bit presumptuous of me. My apologies. The whole spiel has made several rounds on HN, though [1], and Ars reported again on the matter about a week ago [2]. But I do acknowledge that doesn't necessarily mean much... not everyone has the time (or the inclination!) to follow such matters. [1] https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=dual_ec_drbg&sortby=points+desc&start=0 https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=dual_ec_drbg&s... [2] http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/the-nsas-work-to-make-crypto-worse-and-better/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/the-nsas-work-to-mak...

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
"The whole spiel has made several rounds on HN, though [1]" If you look at this discussions, HN commenters were very skeptical this was an NSA backdoor. The speculative possibility isn't news; the fact very much is. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4580434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4580434
- ReidZB 13y ago
  That's the thing, though: this article doesn't say that the NSA did generate the Dual_EC_DRBG constants with a backdoor in mind. It just says that internal memos suggest and appear to confirm that they did. That is, the article isn't really anything new.