pull down to refresh

The U.S. NSA is truly insidious and an enemy of freedom (privacy). They are now attempting to rush through a quantum cryptography standard without proper consensus from the cryptography community, some of whom raise valid concerns about what is being proposed. The NSA has a history of intentional sabotage of cryptography standards, giving themselves (and other adversaries) sly backdoor access to presumed private communications.
Thank you, Dan Bernstein, for once again standing up to power and fighting for our collective right to privacy.
By 2013, NSA had a quarter-billion-dollar-a-year budget to "covertly influence and/or overtly leverage" systems to "make the systems in question exploitable"; in particular, to "influence policies, standards and specification for commercial public key technologies". NSA is quietly using stronger cryptography for the data it cares about, but meanwhile is spending money to promote a market for weakened cryptography, the same way that it successfully created decades of security failures by building up the market for, e.g., 40-bit RC4 and 512-bit RSA and Dual EC. I looked concretely at what was happening in IETF's TLS working group, compared to the consensus requirements for standards-development organizations. I reviewed how a call for "adoption" of an NSA-driven specification produced a variety of objections that weren't handled properly. ("Adoption" is a preliminary step before IETF standardization....) On 5 November 2025, the chairs issued "last call" for objections to publication of the document. The deadline for input is "2025-11-26", this coming Wednesday.
135 sats \ 1 reply \ @brent OP 1 Dec
Thanks for discussing this on SNL, @Car!
You are right, Dan Bernstein should definitely be interviewed on a Bitcoin podcast, for his opinions on this Post-Quantum Cryptography standards issue. He would also be amazing to talk about the threat to cryptography in general from quantum computing, his estimated timelines on that, and other cryptography and privacy related issues of the day. As a prestigious academic, he might not want to appear on a highly visible Bitcoin podcast, for reputational reasons, but its definitely worth asking. I'll DM Danny Knowles about it, maybe he'll respond.
Note that Dan is also famous for having sued the U.S. Government in the 1990's, when they considered cryptography to be munitions, and placed export controls on it, thus limiting Dan's ability to legally publish his source code. He won his case on the grounds that prohibition on code publishing was a violation of his First Amendment rights. The case established code as speech, paving the way for the widespread deployment of privacy technology. He's kind of a big deal!
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 1 Dec
Thanks for posting it on SN, hopefully this will get the broader ecosystem talking about it.
reply
@Car thanks for highlighting this on SNL. What a mess.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 29 Nov
🤙
reply