RobotToaster@mander.xyz to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 years agoMathematician warns US spies may be weakening next-gen encryptionwww.newscientist.comexternal-linkmessage-square42linkfedilinkarrow-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 · 2 years agomessage-square42linkfedilinkcross-posted to: technology@lemmy.worldtechnology@beehaw.org
minus-squarewildbus8979@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up52arrow-down4·edit-22 years 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-up24·2 years 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.
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.