RobotToaster@mander.xyz to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoMathematician warns US spies may be weakening next-gen encryptionwww.newscientist.comexternal-linkmessage-square42fedilinkarrow-up1609arrow-down18cross-posted to: technology@lemmy.worldtechnology@beehaw.org
arrow-up1601arrow-down1external-linkMathematician warns US spies may be weakening next-gen encryptionwww.newscientist.comRobotToaster@mander.xyz to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square42fedilinkcross-posted to: technology@lemmy.worldtechnology@beehaw.org
minus-squareJaderick@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up28arrow-down9·1 year agoI know someone in this field and sent him this article. He said the “NIST isn’t being transparent” claim isn’t true https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=927303 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8309.pdf https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934458 He also responded with “of course the NSA would try and mess with it, but if it’s peer reviewed properly I don’t see how they would be successful”
minus-squarewildbus8979@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up52arrow-down4·edit-21 year agoWe know for a fact that they have done it in the past and managed to hide it until it was too late, what makes you think they can’t do it again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
minus-squareJaderick@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up24·1 year ago peer reviewed properly Is the important bit here. The timeline from that Wikipedia article shows it was published in 2005 and work disproving it’s claim came around in 2006. If a scientists work is retracted it really kills any more funding they receive. They use examples like the DRBG one as what not to be.
minus-squareMonkderZweite@feddit.chlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14·1 year ago but if it’s peer reviewed properly Is it?
minus-squareTechnus@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·edit-21 year agoDid you send him Bernstein’s original blog post? https://blog.cr.yp.to/20231003-countcorrectly.html Unless he’s just making all of this up, it does seem pretty damning. I would love to see an in-depth rebuttal.
minus-squareNatanael@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·1 year agoMore https://ioc.exchange/@matthew_d_green/111227561852301733
I know someone in this field and sent him this article. He said the “NIST isn’t being transparent” claim isn’t true
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=927303 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8309.pdf https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934458
He also responded with “of course the NSA would try and mess with it, but if it’s peer reviewed properly I don’t see how they would be successful”
We know for a fact that they have done it in the past and managed to hide it until it was too late, what makes you think they can’t do it again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
Is the important bit here. The timeline from that Wikipedia article shows it was published in 2005 and work disproving it’s claim came around in 2006.
If a scientists work is retracted it really kills any more funding they receive. They use examples like the DRBG one as what not to be.
Is it?
Did you send him Bernstein’s original blog post?
https://blog.cr.yp.to/20231003-countcorrectly.html
Unless he’s just making all of this up, it does seem pretty damning. I would love to see an in-depth rebuttal.
More
https://ioc.exchange/@matthew_d_green/111227561852301733