4 ms·
I'm glad that NIST removed this from their recommendations. That said, I'm surprised that it took them this long to do so. From the article: "In September
by tjohns 13y ago
I'm glad that NIST removed this from their recommendations.
That said, I'm surprised that it took them this long to do so. From the article:
"In September 2013, news reports prompted public
concern about the trustworthiness of Dual_EC_DRBG..."
Dual_EC_DRBG has been suspect for quite a while longer. There were concerns going back to at least 2006: http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/190 http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/190
- sigil 13y agoYes, this is 8 years overdue. As djb points out in a letter to NIST here [1], this is not just about one specific NIST recommendation that had problems. There are problems with the standardization process as a whole. [1] http://blog.cr.yp.to/20140411-nist.html http://blog.cr.yp.to/20140411-nist.html