Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

blog.cr.yp.to

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#161

Post by tptacek »

smaudet wrote: post #156
tptacek wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are like 3 cryptographers in all of NIST. NIST was a referee in the process. The bones he's picking are with the entire field of cryptography, not just NIST people.

> The bones he's picking are with the entire field of cryptography Isn't that how you advance a field, though? It has been a couple hundred years, but we used to think that disease was primarily caused by "bad humors". Fields can and do advance. I'm not versed enough to say whether his criticisms are legitimate, but this doesn't sound like a problem, but part of the process, to me (and his article is documenting how…

The standards people have problems with weren't run as open processes the way AES, SHA3, and MLKEM were. As for the rest of it: I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like a compelling argument if you think Daniel Bernstein is literally the most competent living cryptographer, or, alternately, if Bernstein and Schneier are the only cryptographers one can name.

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#162

Post by tptacek »

temoiu3 wrote: post #152
tptacek wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "paper" are you referring to?

Think the above poster is full of bologna? It's less painful for everyone involved, and the readers, to just say that and get that out of the way rather than trying to surgically draw it out over half a dozen comments. I see you do this often enough that I think you must get some pleasure out of making people squirm. We know you're smart already!

I think their argument is verkakte but I literally don't know what they're talking about or who the NSA stooge they're referring to is, and it's not so much that I want to make them squirm so much as that I want to draw the full argument out.

I think your complaint isn't with me, but with people who hedge when confronted with direct questions. I think if you look at the thread, you'll see I wasn't exactly playing cards close to my chest.

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#163

Post by yardstick »

f33d5173 wrote: post #149
yardstick wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46035639 A consensus isn’t always 100%

A consensus is by definition 100%. You can redefine the word in a specialist context, but that is what the word means.

Within the IETF it’s not 100%.

See section 3.3 of one of their RFCs for proof.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.html#section-3.3

“ Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached.”

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#164

Post by matheusmoreira »

basilgohar wrote: post #101
seethishat wrote: post #10

For context, djb has been doing and saying these things since he was a college student: While a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley, Bernstein completed the development of an encryption equation (an "algorithm") he calls "Snuffle." Bernstein wishes to publish a) the algorithm (b) a mathematical paper describing and explaining the algorithm and (c) the "source code" for a computer program that…

djb has earned my massive respect for how consistent he's been in this regard. I love his belligerence towards authoritarian overreach in this regard. Him, Phil Zimmermann, Richard Stallman, and all are owed great respect for their insistence on their principles which have paid massive dividends to all of us through the freedom and software that has been preserved and become possible through them. I appreciate them i…

Massive respect from me as well. Insisting on principles is extremely tiring and demoralizing. Doing the right thing constantly requires some serious sacrifice.

The whole world ignores the principles out of convenience. Principles are thrown out the window at the first sign of adversity. People get rich by corrupting and violating principles. It seems like despite all efforts the corrupting forces win anyway. I have no idea how these people find the willpower to keep fighting literal government agencies.

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#165

Post by tankenmate »

smaudet wrote: post #156
tptacek wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are like 3 cryptographers in all of NIST. NIST was a referee in the process. The bones he's picking are with the entire field of cryptography, not just NIST people.

> The bones he's picking are with the entire field of cryptography Isn't that how you advance a field, though? It has been a couple hundred years, but we used to think that disease was primarily caused by "bad humors". Fields can and do advance. I'm not versed enough to say whether his criticisms are legitimate, but this doesn't sound like a problem, but part of the process, to me (and his article is documenting how…

In a lot of ways this seems, from the outside, to be similar to "Planck's principle"; e.g. physics advances one funeral at a time.

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#166

Post by timschmidt »

temoiu3 wrote: post #152
tptacek wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "paper" are you referring to?

Think the above poster is full of bologna? It's less painful for everyone involved, and the readers, to just say that and get that out of the way rather than trying to surgically draw it out over half a dozen comments. I see you do this often enough that I think you must get some pleasure out of making people squirm. We know you're smart already!

I don't make a habit of googling things for people when they could do it just as quickly themselves. There is only one paper proposing the OpenSSL heartbeat feature. So I have not been unclear, nor can there be any confusion about which it is. Perhaps we'll learn someday what tptacek expects to find or not to find in it, but he'll have to spend 30 seconds with Google. As I did.

Informing one's self is a pretty low bar for having a productive conversation. When one party can't be arsed to take the initiative to do so, that usually signals the end of useful interaction.

A comment like "I googled and found this paper... it says X... that means Y to me." would feel much less like someone just looking for an argument, because it involves effort and stating a position.

If he has a point, he's free to make it. Everything he needs is at his fingertips, and there's nothing I could do to stop him, nor would I want to. I asked for a point first thing. All I've gotten in response is combative rhetoric which is neither interesting nor informative.

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#167

Post by f33d5173 »

yardstick wrote: post #163
f33d5173 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A consensus is by definition 100%. You can redefine the word in a specialist context, but that is what the word means.

Within the IETF it’s not 100%. See section 3.3 of one of their RFCs for proof. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.html#section-3.3 “ Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that "dominance" is not…

That's "rough consensus" as opposed to "consensus".

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#168

Post by tptacek »

tankenmate wrote: post #165
smaudet wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bones he's picking are with the entire field of cryptography Isn't that how you advance a field, though? It has been a couple hundred years, but we used to think that disease was primarily caused by "bad humors". Fields can and do advance. I'm not versed enough to say whether his criticisms are legitimate, but this doesn't sound like a problem, but part of the process, to me (and his article is documenting how…

In a lot of ways this seems, from the outside, to be similar to "Planck's principle"; e.g. physics advances one funeral at a time.

In exactly what sense? Who is the "old guard" you're thinking of here? Peter Schwabe got his doctorate 16 years after Bernstein. Peikert got his 10 years after.

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#169

Post by johncolanduoni »

rvba wrote: post #147
johncolanduoni wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, you’ve just convinced every C programmer to use a hand rolled AES implementation on their next embedded device. Only slightly joking.

If the standard had clear algorhitm -> source code, thrn couldnt everyone copy from there though?

AES is actually a good example of why this doesn’t work in cryptography. Implementing AES without a timing side channel in C is pretty much impossible. Each architecture requires specific and subtle constructions to ensure it executes in constant time. Newer algorithms are designed to not have this problem (DJB was actually the one who popularized this approach).

Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand

#170

Post by tptacek »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #169
rvba wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the standard had clear algorhitm -> source code, thrn couldnt everyone copy from there though?

AES is actually a good example of why this doesn’t work in cryptography. Implementing AES without a timing side channel in C is pretty much impossible. Each architecture requires specific and subtle constructions to ensure it executes in constant time. Newer algorithms are designed to not have this problem (DJB was actually the one who popularized this approach).

Reconcile this claim with, for instance, aes_ct64 in Thomas Pornin's BearSSL?

I'm familiar with Bernstein's argument about AES, but AES is also the most successful cryptography standard ever created.

Post reply on HN