Quantum computers may soon be able to crack encryption methods in use today, so plans are already under way to replace them with new, secure algorithms. Now it seems the US National Security Agency may be undermining that process
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.
Looking at the history of the any of the Clandestine US orgs should probably remind us these people will do literally anything that they can, like give people LSD in an attempt to control their mind, or put microphones in Russian cats.
I know someone in this field and sent him this article. He said the “NIST isn’t being transparent” claim isn’t true
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=927303 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8309.pdf https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934458
He also responded with “of course the NSA would try and mess with it, but if it’s peer reviewed properly I don’t see how they would be successful”
We know for a fact that they have done it in the past and managed to hide it until it was too late, what makes you think they can’t do it again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
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.
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.
Looking at the history of the any of the Clandestine US orgs should probably remind us these people will do literally anything that they can, like give people LSD in an attempt to control their mind, or put microphones in Russian cats.
Did you send him Bernstein’s original blog post?
https://blog.cr.yp.to/20231003-countcorrectly.html
Unless he’s just making all of this up, it does seem pretty damning. I would love to see an in-depth rebuttal.
Is it?
More
https://ioc.exchange/@matthew_d_green/111227561852301733