61–70 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there regulations in any industry which require the name of software authors on binaries/products, or at least the name of someone who approved the security claims made by the device?
Buy drives with FIPS 140-2 certification. At least then you know a third party lab has reviewed the implementation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. There's a difference between kicking the tyres and looking under the bonnet of a car, and taking the schematics and building your own. It's easier to show something is crap than convince people that it is good when you're outright hiding things. If the things you aren't hiding (well) are crap, then god only knows how terrible the things you are really hiding are. 2. Making claims based on the calibre of the compan…
I don't know many people who actually work in cryptography who believe that verification is cheaper and easier than building systems. People absolutely do, for the most part, trust DJB because of his track record. Find 10 people who have adopted Poly1305 and ask them what Poly1305 does better than GCM. That's not to say their decision is uninformed; rather, they've delegated a very specialized part of the decision th…
Two things, one of which cannot be credited to Poly1305 directly.
1. Poly1305 is easier to implement without introducing side-channels (modulo integer multiplication on some CPUs; in which case, I defer to Thomas Pornin on how to avoid them).
2. The Chapoly constructions that use Poly1305 do so in a way that leaking the one-time Poly1305 key doesn't buy you much. (This is the one that cannot be attributed to Poly1305 directly.)
Others may have better or different answers. I implemented it in PHP [1], so anyone reading this thread should keep that in mind. :)
[1] https://github.com/paragonie/sodium_compat/blob/f3b2d775a50d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buy drives with FIPS 140-2 certification. At least then you know a third party lab has reviewed the implementation.
It is almost definitely not the case that FIPS certification of any kind reliably informs you that a capable crypto engineer verified the implementation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is almost definitely not the case that FIPS certification of any kind reliably informs you that a capable crypto engineer verified the implementation.
Respectfully, I'll need a citation on that.
(https://www.hitechanswers.net/hipaa-doesnt-require-data-encr...)
But with this revelation, if you have an affected SSD, and you are running Windows, then losing such a laptop may now be a reportable event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, I'll need a citation on that.
Sure. Find any device crypto vulnerability, and check to see if the device was FIPS 140-2 certified. For instance, Infineon with their batshit RNG (the ROCA vulnerability).
So I'm still going to have to ask for an actual citation
Edit: I also didn't see where that device is Fips certified either
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, I'll need a citation on that.
Sure. Find any device crypto vulnerability, and check to see if the device was FIPS 140-2 certified. For instance, Infineon with their batshit RNG (the ROCA vulnerability).
Warning - this file will automatically download instead of opening up in the browser.