[cryptography] the spell is broken

coderman coderman at gmail.com
Thu Oct 3 07:56:36 EDT 2013


On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:28 AM, James A. Donald <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:
> ...
> He does not believe that AES and SHA-2 rest are necessarily broken - but
> neither does he believe that they are not broken.


there is a significant difference between avoiding a cipher on principle,
 or association, or abundance of caution, or to avoid proving a negative,

and avoiding a cipher because it is "broken".


perhaps i am being pedantic, but the details matter!

the subterfuge and fail associated with Dual_EC_DRBG is a league apart
from the lack of transparency around P-192 to P-521 curves/constants
which in turn is entirely different from the meddling in cryptographic
protocols like IPsec and SSL/TLS which is in turn very different from
secret back|bugdoors in specific vendor cryptographic products and
implementations, and so forth.

this is complex; too often simplified to ingenuous "elliptic curves
are broken" or "NIST approved systems are backdoor'ed" or "AES and
SHA-2 are broken".


please don't propagate mis-information and mis-understanding via
careless terms and qualifiers; we have paid professionals in the
intelligence community for that!
 ;)


More information about the cryptography mailing list