3 ms·
I think to say we can't build safe cryptographic protocols is too strong. I'd say that it's very hard to design safe systems from the ground up. But it's still
by madez 12y ago
I think to say we can't build safe cryptographic protocols is too strong. I'd say that it's very hard to design safe systems from the ground up. But it's still possible to realistically and practically work around certain threats without opening another vulnerability.
- andrewflnr 12y agoIt's really not that hard, huh? Do you have some evidence or solid reasoning? Given that this is a hard question to get objectivity on, do you think you have more experience with crypto than daeken? If no, you should probably update your beliefs to consider daeken's opinion, rather than repeat your own without substantiation.
- daeken 12y agoIt's not realistic, because you will never consider every possible attack scenario. You may have considered timing attacks, but if you don't consider the way that the processor uses power when running through your algorithm, you may have just leaked key material. This sounds like an obscure case, right? Except that the Trezor bitcoin security appliance was just broken in that way last week. Secure crypto comes from a lot of smart people repeatedly trying to destroy an algorithm and its implementation. It doesn't come from a super smart person building a cryptosystem; that's how we end up with DVD CSS.
- madez 12y agoThe attack scenarios you described are against an implementation whereas I said your statement regarding protocols was too strong. Having that in mind, our comments don't disagree.
- c22 12y agoThe format of a discussion does not necessarily have to follow a strict pattern of point->counterpoint->point->counterpoint->win in order to be meaningful or useful to the participants and spectators.