Live data from Hacker News

NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

nist.gov

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

#11

[flagged]

I recommend this video by Computerphile - He talks about how NIST may have been pressured into enforcing compromised (backdoored?) cryptography methods as a standard - Dual_EC_DRBG to be exact. He also gives a super cool/intuitive breakdown on how this came to be. It will definitely grow some food for thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybVFJVXbww

Re: NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

#12
Give how quickly quantum is potentially coming, I wonder if we should/could find some way of using multiple quantum-resistant algorithms simultaneously as a default, in case a fault is found after the limited time we have to verify that there are no faults.

Also - should we not be switching over to these algorithms starting like... now? Am I wrong that anyone collecting https traffic now will be able to break it in the future?

Re: NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

#13

[flagged]

I recommend this video by Computerphile - He talks about how NIST may have been pressured into enforcing compromised (backdoored?) cryptography methods as a standard - Dual_EC_DRBG to be exact. He also gives a super cool/intuitive breakdown on how this came to be. It will definitely grow some food for thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybVFJVXbww

Dual EC was not the product of a contest. The NIST PQC algorithms are all designed by academic cryptographers, many of them not US nationals.

Re: NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

#14

[flagged]

I recommend this video by Computerphile - He talks about how NIST may have been pressured into enforcing compromised (backdoored?) cryptography methods as a standard - Dual_EC_DRBG to be exact. He also gives a super cool/intuitive breakdown on how this came to be. It will definitely grow some food for thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybVFJVXbww

Small summary, courtesy of Wikipedia which makes a stronger claim than "may have been pressured":

> In September 2013, both The Guardian and The New York Times reported that NIST allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to insert a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator called Dual EC DRBG into NIST standard SP 800-90 that had a kleptographic backdoor that the NSA can use to covertly predict the future outputs of this pseudorandom number generator. [...] the NSA worked covertly to get its own version of SP 800-90 approved for worldwide use in 2006. The whistle-blowing document states that "eventually, NSA became the sole editor".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Standard...

Re: NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

#15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to defend the practice, but the layoffs have been for employees with 0-3 years in role, which probably does not include the people selecting post-quantum encryption algorithms.

Perhaps, but what surprised the DOGE folks is that “in role” included some people who were recently promoted or had changed teams.. so many of the laid off employees were actually long-time employees with a ton of institutional knowledge. Perhaps they would have learned as much if they had done literally any due diligence to understand the departments they were tasked with organizing, but I guess we’ll never know.

You're implying that these people are not smart enough to already have known what they were doing. You will now be logged and noted as a dissenter, and are now officially warned against further dissent. You don't want to FAFO. --DOGE management

it's only the next natural step

Re: NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

#16

[flagged]

can we not turn every thread into a politics one? i doubt the Trump admin has strongly vested interest in which post-quantum scheme is selected e: and yes, i am aware of the history around nist and crypto

> i doubt the Trump admin has strongly vested interest in which post-quantum scheme is selected

That's not the argument being made, you're using that as a strawman to distract from the actual position, which is that indiscriminate layoffs (which is what DOGE is doing) reduce institutional competence and increase the likelihood that whatever scheme is selected is not fit for purpose. Address that argument, not the one you've invented in your head.

Re: NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can we not turn every thread into a politics one? i doubt the Trump admin has strongly vested interest in which post-quantum scheme is selected e: and yes, i am aware of the history around nist and crypto

> i doubt the Trump admin has strongly vested interest in which post-quantum scheme is selected That's not the argument being made, you're using that as a strawman to distract from the actual position, which is that indiscriminate layoffs (which is what DOGE is doing) reduce institutional competence and increase the likelihood that whatever scheme is selected is not fit for purpose. Address that argument, not the one…

my point is merely that the quality of discussion in the replies to GGP are going to be bad [0][1][2], the relevance is tenuous, and it crowds out content based discussion. of course, now my content-based questions are getting downvoted.

> reduce institutional competence and increase the likelihood

most replies interpreted it the same way I did, likely due to the reference to 'loyalties' & 'trust'.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43333834 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43333698 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43333643

Re: NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

#19
Meta: I can understand the math problems behind RSA and DH, and the general concepts of EC, but all stuff for post-quantum algorithms I have yet to have a intuitive understanding even after reading / watching a bunch of videos trying to explain things.

Re: NIST selects HQC as fifth algorithm for post-quantum encryption

#20

Give how quickly quantum is potentially coming, I wonder if we should/could find some way of using multiple quantum-resistant algorithms simultaneously as a default, in case a fault is found after the limited time we have to verify that there are no faults. Also - should we not be switching over to these algorithms starting like... now? Am I wrong that anyone collecting https traffic now will be able to break it in t…

Correct, KEM's should be replaced ASAP since they are currently vulnerable to store-now-decrypt-later attacks. Digital signature algorithms are less urgent but considering how long it takes to roll out new cryptography standards, they should be preferred for any new designs. That said, the new PQC signatures are much larger than the current 32 byte ed25519 signatures that are most common, and that could end up being very difficult to integrate into embedded systems with low bandwidth or limited memory, ie. CAN bus secure diagnostics, meshtastic nodes etc.
Post reply on HN