this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
627 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

58155 readers
3565 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
627
Mathematician warns US spies may be weakening next-gen encryption (www.newscientist.com)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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”

[–] [email protected] 51 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 24 points 11 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

but if it’s peer reviewed properly

Is it?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.