Comment by zahllos
2 years ago
DualEC: agree. Wanted to point out that it was a poor PRNG _anyway_ and point out that the NSA's attempt at backdooring the RNG wasn't that great - as you say, RSA BSAFE used it and it made no sense. We could also point out they went after the RNG rather than the algorithm directly, which is a less obvious strategy.
I'll believe he invented the term - I have a 2009 book so-named for which he was an editor surveying non-DLP/non-RSA algorithms. Still, the idea that he's "the only one who can produce the good algorithms" and literally everyone else on the pqc list (even if we subtract all the NIST people) is wrong is bonkers.
While I agree with a lot of what you have said,
>Still, the idea that he's "the only one who can produce the good algorithms"
The parent post did not, at all, make the claim that Bernstein is the only one.
No, true, the post did not explicitly state this. However the post did suggest that NIST is specifically out to get him and take a swipe at the other candidates:
> Is NIST trying to derail his work by standardizing crappy algorithms with the help of the NSA? Who knows. But to me it does smell like that.
"Crappy" algorithms that were designed by well-regarded cryptographers, none of whom work for NIST or the NSA, many of whom are not US nationals.
The evidence seems to at least point to NIST trying to get selected one specific algorithm selected.
How else do you explain the after-the-fact changing of evaluation criteria (all favoring one algorithm) and the weird calculation error (which as I understand the text didn't come from the Kyber designers but the evaluation committee)?
Add to that the lack of transparency in particular why not follow the FOI requests ? and the much more significant involvement of NSA employees in the process (contrary to their own statement). Shouldn't that make everyone very suspicious?
1 reply →
Being incompetent is possible even if you’re not a US national.
2 replies →