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

Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

eprint.iacr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#41

Post by secretkeyholder »

pvg wrote: post #40
secretkeyholder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what basis do you make that claim? It appears that you’re saying that PX-1000cr isn’t an example NSA backdoor or that the article breaking the cipher in the PX1000cr is incorrect? It seems like you’re either very aware of how NSA backdoors work and you’re misleading people for some reason or you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re being hopeful and you are ignoring the evidence that NSA inserts backdoors…

It seems like you’re either very aware of how NSA backdoors work and you’re misleading people for some reason or you don’t know what you’re talking about you can't talk at people like that here, see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take it down five notches

I am explaining that I see two options and I pick the second in good faith. I believe I am participating according to the rules, or at least I am attempting to do so in good faith.

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#42

Post by secretkeyholder »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #23
RansomStark wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way Dual_EC_DRBG became a NIST standard, the NSA pulls the strings. You can't expect a government department to provide robust security to the masses when the rest of the government is trying the prevent that exact situation. At this point anything, cryptography related, coming from NIST should be considered compromised.

There is no indication that that’s what happened in this case. This stuff is just non-trivial to cryptanalyze , and there’s not that many people who can do it.

NSA is regularly claimed to be the employer of the largest number of mathematicians in the world.

The reason we don’t know about the NSA analysis is that the law doesn’t require NSA to analyze the winners and then make the results public.

If Ward can do it and make it public, that’s wonderful and we should thank him. Thank you Ward!

We can’t say the same about NSA. This is really a problem and we should be able to rely on NSA to break such schemes and to deliver the result openly to NIST. It’s unbelievable that this isn’t the case and rather we have to rely on some nice guy with a weekend of laptop time.

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#43

Post by secretkeyholder »

generalizations wrote: post #26
tptacek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A risible argument. NSA wants NOBUS vulnerabilities: the kind they can exploit, but nobody else can, because NIST cryptography gets used on the kinds of systems NSA doesn't want exploited in a weekend with a laptop.

They fooled us once; are you suggesting we let them fool us again? We have very good reason to look at NIST with suspicion from now on.

This is a very reasonable take. The people at NIST are in a bind. Many of them are good people with positive intentions, but they cannot speak freely about NSA and they say so openly at cryptography conferences when asked.

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#44

Post by olliej »

ototot wrote: post #37
olliej wrote: post #32

The rainbow team just posted to the pqc development list acknowledging the attack and thanking the authors. They’ve increased the parameter sets to compensate, implying that the maths I don’t understand doesn’t create a systemic failure but rather a sufficiently meaningful reduction in attack complexity

Is this[0] the correct link you're mentioning? [0] https://groups.google.com/a/list.nist.gov/g/pqc-forum/c/KFgw...

yup! cheers for that (I get them in email, and totally forgot that they're also visible in google groups :D)

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#45

Post by pvg »

secretkeyholder wrote: post #41
pvg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you’re either very aware of how NSA backdoors work and you’re misleading people for some reason or you don’t know what you’re talking about you can't talk at people like that here, see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take it down five notches

I am explaining that I see two options and I pick the second in good faith. I believe I am participating according to the rules, or at least I am attempting to do so in good faith.

One is innuendo, the second one is an insult. In good faith or not, neither is 'participating according to the rules' since both are explicitly mentioned there as things not to do.

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#46

Post by secretkeyholder »

tux3 wrote: post #22
RansomStark wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way Dual_EC_DRBG became a NIST standard, the NSA pulls the strings. You can't expect a government department to provide robust security to the masses when the rest of the government is trying the prevent that exact situation. At this point anything, cryptography related, coming from NIST should be considered compromised.

This is pure paranoia, I'll be the first to criticize NIST and NSA for the damage they've done to standards and to their own credibility. But don't over-correct. You can't just call anyone who submits to NIST an NSA puppet. There is zero parrallel with the Dual EC backdoor.

Prudence sometimes looks like paranoia.

The parallel that matters is that NSA is documented as being inclined to design, allow, and promote backdoors like Dual EC to be standardized by NIST. They have no obligation to break and publish the break as Ward has done here. It’s not that the authors of rainbow are suspect, it’s that the result of the process isn’t telling us what we hope it tells us. NIST must consult with NSA by law but the law does not require NSA to help. It certainly does not require NSA to save NIST from standardizing a broken system. The Dual EC backdoor is a documented act of strategic sabotage by NSA and NIST, though we extend the benefit of the doubt to NIST.

What stands between us and additional standardized backdoors is effectively a very small number of smart academics who relative to NSA are underfunded and under resourced. Thankfully we have people like Ward breaking systems and publishing it openly. Unfortunately we have NSA funded people pushing things as well, Dragonfly and IETF come to mind here as well.

NIST standardization does not mean NSA can’t break it. Historically, we know from the Dual EC standardization that they can break it by their own design, and they let the world deploy and use Dual EC to NSA’s own advantage.

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#47

Post by secretkeyholder »

pvg wrote: post #45
secretkeyholder wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am explaining that I see two options and I pick the second in good faith. I believe I am participating according to the rules, or at least I am attempting to do so in good faith.

One is innuendo, the second one is an insult. In good faith or not, neither is 'participating according to the rules' since both are explicitly mentioned there as things not to do.

I respectfully disagree. It certainly isn’t intended as an insult!

One looks like astroturfing performed without a valid basis against cited examples shared in good faith, the other appears to be a mistake in analysis which I am pointing out in good faith. It’s probably an honest mistake, the history here is intentionally obscured by large-scale adversaries.

I do believe that the second is just a mistake and I do not intend it as an insult. I would appreciate it if you could please assume good faith with my responses and additionally hear me when I say it is in good faith a mistake of analysis. I think that his analysis is simply wrong, and my citations are evidence for why I think this is so.

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#48

Post by pvg »

secretkeyholder wrote: post #47
pvg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is innuendo, the second one is an insult. In good faith or not, neither is 'participating according to the rules' since both are explicitly mentioned there as things not to do.

I respectfully disagree. It certainly isn’t intended as an insult! One looks like astroturfing performed without a valid basis against cited examples shared in good faith, the other appears to be a mistake in analysis which I am pointing out in good faith. It’s probably an honest mistake, the history here is intentionally obscured by large-scale adversaries. I do believe that the second is just a mistake and I do not…

You don't have to agree but you can't call people NSA shills and you can't tell people they don't know what they're talking about. That's just how this forum works - don't put that kind of thing in your comments. It's not a high or difficult bar to meet.

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#49

Post by wglb »

secretkeyholder wrote: post #47
pvg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is innuendo, the second one is an insult. In good faith or not, neither is 'participating according to the rules' since both are explicitly mentioned there as things not to do.

I respectfully disagree. It certainly isn’t intended as an insult! One looks like astroturfing performed without a valid basis against cited examples shared in good faith, the other appears to be a mistake in analysis which I am pointing out in good faith. It’s probably an honest mistake, the history here is intentionally obscured by large-scale adversaries. I do believe that the second is just a mistake and I do not…

> very aware of how NSA backdoors work and you’re misleading people

Hard to coerce that into a "good faith".

Accusations of astroturfing are not allowed here.

Re: Breaking rainbow takes a weekend on a laptop

#50

Post by secretkeyholder »

wglb wrote: post #49
secretkeyholder wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully disagree. It certainly isn’t intended as an insult! One looks like astroturfing performed without a valid basis against cited examples shared in good faith, the other appears to be a mistake in analysis which I am pointing out in good faith. It’s probably an honest mistake, the history here is intentionally obscured by large-scale adversaries. I do believe that the second is just a mistake and I do not…

> very aware of how NSA backdoors work and you’re misleading people Hard to coerce that into a "good faith". Accusations of astroturfing are not allowed here.

I’m saying this in response to the parents claim of it being hard to get a bead on what he is arguing. I’m answering that as two possible ways to read it and I emphasize the latter. I did not accuse, I tried to explain what I think people take from his argumentation.
Post reply on HN