221–230 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Filippo Valsorda seems to be happy to ignore the fact that NIST already let an NSA backdoor in, as recently as 2014: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG is he really just going to ignore something from 8 years ago?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
First, last I checked, Filippo does not in fact work at Google. Second: the guidelines on this site forbid you to write comments like this; in fact, this pattern of comments is literally the most frequent source of moderator admonitions on HN. Filippo hardly needs me to defend his reputation, but, as a service to HN and to you in particular, I'd want to raise your awareness of the risk of beclowning yourself by sugge…
side question : I've only recently started to digg a bit deeper into crypto algorithms ( looking into various types of curves etc), and it gave me the uneasing feeling that the whole industry is relying on the expertise of only a handful of guys to actually ensure that crypto schemes used today are really working. Am i wrong ? are there actually thousands and thousands of people with the expertise to actually proove…
Most programmers don't need to prove crypto algorithms. There are many situations where you can just use TLS 1.3 and let it choose the ciphers. If you really need to build a custom protocol or file format, you can still use libsodium's secretbox, crypto_box, and crypto_kx functions which use the right algorithms.
Put another way, they are asking how many people in the world could verify that the algorithms used by libsodium, crypto_box, etc. are secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believing both "Don't roll your own crypto" and "Don't trust the standards" would seem to leave the average developer in something of a quandry, no?
No. I don't think we should rely on formal standards, like FIPS, NIST, and the IETF. Like Bernstein himself, I do think we should rely on peer-reviewed expert cryptography. I use Chapoly, not a stream cipher I concocted myself, or some bizarro cipher cascade posted to HN. This is what I'm talking about when I mentioned the Noise Protocol Framework. If IETF standards happen to end up with good cryptography because the…
I assume your concerns are with the process of standardization, and not the idea of standards themselves. After all, there are plenty of expert peer-reviews going on in NIST and in the IRTF.
Noise is useful for building your own bespoke kit, but there does need to be an agreement to use it in the same manner if you hope for interoperability. Things like public key crypto are precisely useful because the other side can read the information back out at the end of the process, even if they aren't running e.g. the same email client version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I don't think we should rely on formal standards, like FIPS, NIST, and the IETF. Like Bernstein himself, I do think we should rely on peer-reviewed expert cryptography. I use Chapoly, not a stream cipher I concocted myself, or some bizarro cipher cascade posted to HN. This is what I'm talking about when I mentioned the Noise Protocol Framework. If IETF standards happen to end up with good cryptography because the…
> No. I don't think we should rely on formal standards, like FIPS, NIST, and the IETF. I assume your concerns are with the process of standardization, and not the idea of standards themselves. After all, there are plenty of expert peer-reviews going on in NIST and in the IRTF. Noise is useful for building your own bespoke kit, but there does need to be an agreement to use it in the same manner if you hope for interop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dismissing this lawsuit as a conspiracy theory is embarrassing for both of them. They are not dismissing the lawsuit.
One says he’s doing it wrong. The other says he hopes that he wins, of course! Meanwhile they go on to attack Bernstein, mischaracterize his writing, completely dismiss his historical analysis, mock him with memes as a conspiracy theorist, and to top it off they question his internal motivations (which they somehow know) as some kind of a sore loser which is demonstrably false. The plot twist for the last point: he i…
Meanwhile: you haven't actually added any light to this subthread: the tweets we're talking about do not dismiss the suit. Cryptographic researchers that aren't stans of Daniel Bernstein (there are a lot of those) are also unhappy about NIST clowning up FOIA.
You are in a deeply weird and broken place if you think you can divide the world into "people who take what Daniel Bernstein says on faith" and "people who trust NIST". I don't know if you're in that place! But some people on this thread clearly are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Roll your own crypto" typically refers to making your own algorithm or implementation of an algorithm not choosing the algorithm.
Would you really want every random corporation having some random person pick from the list of open source cipher packages? Which last I checked , still included things like 3DES, MD5, etc. You might as well hand a drunk monkey a loaded sub machine gun.
It could even generate an algorithm so complicated it would be close to impossible for a human mind to comprehend the depth of it.
Flippo valrosida and Matthey green aren't too happy. https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/15556838562625208...
Perhaps the best way to build trust in a cryptographic algorithm is to have it devised by certifiably neutral general purpose mathematic neural net. It could even generate an algorithm so complicated it would be close to impossible for a human mind to comprehend the depth of it.
So, by a process that hasn't been designed yet. Especially when one considers how opaque most neutral nets are to human scrutiny.