[Cryptography] Now it's personal -- Belgian cryptographer MITM'd by GCHQ/NSA

Richard Outerbridge outer at sympatico.ca
Sun Feb 2 23:41:34 EST 2014

On 2014-02-02 (33), at 21:38:40, James A. Donald <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2014, at 5:38 AM, ianG wrote:
>>> We can play the game of "you don't know that for a fact" forever, but at
>>> the end of the day, they will never enter court and let the court
>>> declare it a fact, so that easy excuse is their game, their rules, their
>>> victory.
> On 2014-02-03 09:56, Jerry Leichter wrote:
>> And the alternative is ... what?  The witch hunt?  The mob?  Kill all, God will know his own?
> Short of the fall of the US government, we are not in position to hang them
> The alternative, is simply to distrust them and everything they have touched, to assume that any *software* that they have a finger in is guilty until proven innocent, that every committee that they have a member on is trying impose broken standards, and or prevent workable standards.
> _______________________________________________
> The cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at metzdowd.com
> http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

In retrospect it seems that certain aspects of the then au currant NIST
statistical randomness tests were badly flawed at the time that AES candidates
were being evaluated.  Don’t know that it would have made much difference,
just noting that they were badly skewed.  How could this have happened?

/ps co-submitter DEAL.

More information about the cryptography mailing list