131–140 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slow? Fastest in HW, and comparable performance in SW. Moreover if you take into account security hardening, SHA3 is easier to protect than alternatives.
Last I checked SHA3-512 is like 4x slower than SHA2-512 on x86.
"All we can do is tell people that NIST are the ones in the room making the decisions, but if you don't believe us, there's no way you could verify that without being inside NIST" says Moody. There's our problem - right there! If a body as important as NIST is not so utterly transparent that any random interested person cannot comb through every meeting, memo, and coffee break conversation then it needs disbanding an…
The fact that NIST is not transparent is enough to assume that anything related to cryptography that NIST touches is compromised. Frankly, I would assume any modern encryption is compromised by default - the gamble is just in who compromised it and how likely it would be that they want access to your data.
Everything America does is in service of maintaining its position as the hegemonic player. The US intelligence agencies have infiltrated every university and tech company since forever. It's their job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most officials communicate in ways that circumvent FOIA.
Hillary Clinton's email server is a famous example of attempting to avoid FOIA requests.
Complex tasks like "set up a new computer" had months of lead time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last I checked SHA3-512 is like 4x slower than SHA2-512 on x86.
And SHA-1 is faster than SHA-2, with MD5 faster than both. But speed isn't the only reason to choose an algorithm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly sure if explicitly declared output of the Kagi Universal Summarizer is allowed (will delete again if not, but I did not see a guideline for it), but I think this could be a start sparking further curiosity. (I don't know how accurate the output is, as I am not a domain expert in PQC or cryptography in general, for that matter) Kagi Universal Summarizer output for "Summary": This web page discusses the sel…
I don’t think this contributes to the conversation. There is clearly social context to this situation and copy pasting a machine-generated summary is no more helpful than reading the article at face value.
anyways, it seems i cannot delete the comment, so would be great if a moderator or something could do it, thanks.
"All we can do is tell people that NIST are the ones in the room making the decisions, but if you don't believe us, there's no way you could verify that without being inside NIST" says Moody. There's our problem - right there! If a body as important as NIST is not so utterly transparent that any random interested person cannot comb through every meeting, memo, and coffee break conversation then it needs disbanding an…
I'm now picturing a slightly different government to ours, where the oversight bodies have the additional function of making sure officials don't talk to one another outside of recorded meetings under the public's eye. It seems like a huge burden. It is the kind of thing, though, that in a parallel universe would make total sense: our representatives should be beholden to us.
Which has the net effect of decreasing the ability to reach nobody-is-happy compromises.
Which is something else people say they want.
I'm unconvinced that private, smoke-filled backrooms don't have an essential place as the grease that keeps things running well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If “an academic is sour they didn’t receive credit” and “an academic wants to help the world” are both on the menu, you should always linger over the first possibility. Hell, I’m an academic and you should consider it in regards to this post.
Thanks for providing some context Matthew, I specifically went to mastodon to get your take on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is so much to unpack in that thread and its references. A lot of he said she said. For example, one reference being used as evidence that djb is evil complains about being insulted that their employer (also djb's employer, presumed to be on djb's side) suggested seeing a company doctor after being on sick leave for a while. This is 100% standard practice in the Netherlands and the doctor is independent, not fro…
FWIW, I don't believe Bernstein is evil. I do believe he has increasingly argued in bad faith and alienated his peers to the point that they're (we're) unwilling to engage with him, which from the outside can look like his points are unrefutable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not dig through all the links in that twitter thread, but the first few tweets are pretty misleading. The tweets say DJB implied that scientists who submitted algorithms were bribed by the NSA. That's a complete misunderstanding of that DJB wrote: he argued that the NSA wouldn't need to bribe those scientists, because they hired the top experts in the field years ago, so it might be the case that they're so far…
> no idea if DJB's argument is insanely paranoid Isn't paranoia an essential job requirement for cryptographers?