[cryptography] the spell is broken

James A. Donald jamesd at echeque.com
Thu Oct 3 19:09:21 EDT 2013


On 2013-10-04 08:04, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> Reasoning that way, you're very quickly left with not but a tin foil
> hat. Let's say we agree on twofish. then NIST/NSA certifies it for FIPS.
> Are we than taking that as proof it is compromised and figure out
> something else?

If people were adopting twofish Jon Callas did so, reason to believe in 
twofish.  If people were adopting twofish because NIST was doing it, 
that would be reason to doubt twofish.

If all shall follow Jon Callas as unelected president for life of 
symmetric cryptography then NIST is powerless, therefore irrelevant.  If 
it does not set standards, cannot corrupt them.



More information about the cryptography mailing list