Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

God darn, I read most of that blog post and pretended I understood half of it....While the bulk of it seems to come off like someone bitter their favourite crypto system didn't get chosen in a competition, the kafka-y details are compelling against the NSA fricking with shit again.

NIST manipulated graphs to make one look better, hid the fact a bunch of NSA guys participated in a paper, told teams to prioritize certain criteria then when they submitted criticized the losing team for not prioritizing other things, the blatant masking of a critical math flaw 3 layers deep in citations of citations, etc.

This sounds pretty bad.

On one side you have a teams of guys working hard on an open project and then you have a fully staffed NSA team with tens of people working full time trying to find ways to push the weakest one and mask flaws (or insert flaws) as cleverly as possible.

It will always be :marseyschizowall: because NSA's bread and butter is plausible deniability. It's just accidental math mistakes. It's just human failibility when running standards boards etc.

Anyway I think most people don't trust NIST at all already, this sort of thing will seal the casket even if it doesn't get proven. But it won't stop it from being used in important places.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.