• Jaderick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    peer reviewed properly

    Is the important bit here. The timeline from that Wikipedia article shows it was published in 2005 and work disproving it’s claim came around in 2006.

    If a scientists work is retracted it really kills any more funding they receive. They use examples like the DRBG one as what not to be.

    • thesmokingman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually that’s a problem with NIST period. DES was a huge fiasco and their post-quantum suggestions are wrong. NIST actively approved Skipjack citing “peer review” as part of the abortive Clipper chip program. Time and time again, NIST publishes things the community knows are bad or skips community feedback. NIST’s recommendations, unless backed by an international consensus, should never be trusted even with peer review claims, especially if that review comes from the NSA or NSA-funded mathematicians.