Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you! I had no idea.
That article is pure horsecrap: https://eindhoven.cr.yp.to/false-statements-by-henry-de-vale...
Because Bernstein says so?
NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
231–240 of 249 posts
Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
#232Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
#233Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
#234Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
#235Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Bernstein says so?
[flagged]
Well that's sure an argument. You get that I'm not the one who accused him, right? What you think of me has literally nothing to do with the claims Henry de Valence made. My guess is that these two documents (or maybe just the one you posted) are literally the first time you ever heard that name. Am I right?
Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t see anything “batshit” in either the paper or the slides.
Say more. What do you think of his argument? I paraphrased it downthread. Do you think I did so accurately? If not: what did I get wrong?
At least in terms of the Bada55 paper, I think he writes in a fairly jocular style that sounds unprofessional unless you read his citations as well. You seem to object to his occasional jocularity and take it as prima facie evidence of him being “batshit”. Given that you are well known for a jocular writing style, perhaps you should extend some grace.
The slides seem like a pretty nice summary of the 2015-era SafeCurves work, which you acknowledge elsewhere on this site (this thread? They all blend together) was based on good engineering.
Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Well that's sure an argument. You get that I'm not the one who accused him, right? What you think of me has literally nothing to do with the claims Henry de Valence made. My guess is that these two documents (or maybe just the one you posted) are literally the first time you ever heard that name. Am I right?
Very very incorrect.
EDIT: Adding more to my post here because it would be hypocritical for you to complain:
1. I feel like given how I can make accurate predictions about Henry’s sphere of influence, that might gain me a little credibility: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45495180
2. The reason I insulted you is because I know for a fact that when the mob came and demanded you shun and persecute someone, you caved.
Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that's sure an argument. You get that I'm not the one who accused him, right? What you think of me has literally nothing to do with the claims Henry de Valence made. My guess is that these two documents (or maybe just the one you posted) are literally the first time you ever heard that name. Am I right?
Very very incorrect. EDIT: Adding more to my post here because it would be hypocritical for you to complain: 1. I feel like given how I can make accurate predictions about Henry’s sphere of influence, that might gain me a little credibility: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45495180 2. The reason I insulted you is because I know for a fact that when the mob came and demanded you shun and persecute someone, you ca…
de Valence accuses Bernstein of specific academic misconduct and you come back with this Encyclopedia Dramatica stuff? Why bother commenting at all?
I don't think "I insulted you because" is ever a good way to start an HN comment, for what it's worth, but thanks for laying your cards on the table.
Re: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say more. What do you think of his argument? I paraphrased it downthread. Do you think I did so accurately? If not: what did I get wrong?
At least in terms of the Bada55 paper, I think he writes in a fairly jocular style that sounds unprofessional unless you read his citations as well. You seem to object to his occasional jocularity and take it as prima facie evidence of him being “batshit”. Given that you are well known for a jocular writing style, perhaps you should extend some grace. The slides seem like a pretty nice summary of the 2015-era SafeCur…
No, what I'm saying has only to do with the substance of his claims, which I now think you don't understand, because I laid them out straightforwardly (I might have been wrong, but I definitely wasn't making a tone argument) and you came back with this. People actually do work in this field. You can't just bluster your way through it.
This is a "challenge" with discussing Bernstein claims on Hacker News and places like it --- the threads are full of people who know two cryptographers in the whole world (Bernstein and Schneier) and axiomatically derive their claims from "whatever those two said is probably true". It's the same way you get these inane claims that Kyber was backdoored by the NSA --- by looking at the list of authors on Kyber and not recognizing a single one of them.
What do you think about Bernstein's arguments for SNTRUP being safe while Kyber isn't? Super curious. I barely follow. Maybe you've got a better grip on the controversy.