I believe you have a very naive and trusting view of these US governmental bodies. I don't intend that to be an insult, but by now I think the jury is out that these agencies cannot be trusted (the NSA less so, than NIST).
Running standards without full transparency, in my experiences of web security standards + web GPU standards is almost always due to hiding weaknesses, incompetence, security gaps of big players, & internal politics of these powerful incumbents. Think some hardware vendor not playing ball without guarantee of privacy, some Google/Apple committee member dragging their feet because of internal politics & monopoly plays. Seperately, mistakes may come from standards committee member glossing over stuff in emails because they're busy: senior folks are the most technically qualified yet also most busy. Generally not because some NSA/CIA employee is telling them to do something sneaky or lying. Still FOIA-worthy (and why I rather public lists for standards), but for much lamer reasons.
I agree with this. And I think that this is more likely to be the case. But I really think with all that we now know about US governmental organisations the possibility of backdoors or coercion should not be ruled out.
The whole point of the competition structure is that you don't simply have to trust NIST; the competitors (and cryptographers who aren't even entrants in the contest) are peer reviewing each other, and NIST is refereeing.
What Bernstein is counting on here is that his cheering section doesn't know the names of any cryptographers besides "djb", Bruce Schneier, and maybe, just maybe, Joan Daemen. If they knew anything about who the PQC team members were, they'd shoot milk out their nose at the suggestion that NSA had suborned backdoors from them. What's upsetting is that he knows this, and he knows you don't know this, and he's exploiting that.
May I ask what you view as the alternative? (No formal cryptographic standard, or something else?)
Likely scenarios, and that closed review hides:
- Peer review happened... But was lame. Surprisingly common, and often the typical case.
- If some discussion did come up on a likely attack... What? Was the rebuttal and final discussion satisfactory?
It's interesting if some gov team found additional things... But I'm less worried about that, they're effectively just an 'extra' review committee. Though as djb fears, a no-no if they ask to weaken something... And hence another reason it's good for the history of the alg to be public.
Edit: Now that storage and video are cheap, I can easily imagine a shift to requiring all emails + meetings to be fully published.
Edit: I can't reply some reason, but having been an academic reviewer, including for security, and won awards for best of year/decade academic papers, I can say academic peer review may not be doing what most people think, eg, it is often more about novelty and trends and increments from a 1 hour skim. Or catching only super obvious things outsiders and fresh researchers mess up on. Very diff from say a yearlong $1M dedicated pentest. Which I doubt happened. It's easy to tell which kind of review happened when reading a report... Hence me liking a call for openness here.
Replying to your edit I've been an academic peer reviewer too. For all of its weaknesses, that kind of peer review is the premise of the PQC contest --- indeed, it's the premise of pretty much all of modern cryptography.
In this case, looks like the community does value backing up its claims, and the protocol is verified: https://www.wireguard.com/formal-verification/ . Pretty awesome! The implementation itself seems to be written unsafely, so TBD there.
If it's worth anything, you have changed my opinion on this. You raise very good points.
I spent almost 2 decades as a Daniel Bernstein ultra-fan --- he's a hometown hero, and also someone whose work was extremely important to me professionally in the 1990s, and, to me at least, he has always been kind and cheerful; he even tried to give us some ideas for ECC challenges for Cryptopals. I know what it's like to be in the situation of (a) deeply admiring Bernstein and (b) only really paying attention to one cryptographer in the world (Bernstein).
But talk to a bunch of other cryptographers --- and, also, learn about the work a lot of other cryptographers are doing --- and you're going to hear stories. I'm not going to say Bernstein has a bad reputation; for one thing, I'm not qualified to say that, and for another I don't think "bad" is the right word. So I'll put it this way: Bernstein has a fucked up reputation in his field. I am not at all happy to say that, but it's true.
He has never been that to me; I've had just a few personal interactions with him, and they've been uniformly positive. My feeling is that he was generous with his time and expertise when I had questions, and pleasant and welcoming in person.
He has, in the intervening years, done several things that grossed me the fuck out, though. There are certainly people who revel in hating the guy. I'm not one of them.
Please point to this suggestion.
> the motivation behind those requests is risible.
It is quite hilarious that NIST suckered the industry into actually using Dual-EC, despite being worse than the other possible choices in nearly every respect. And this ignores the fact that the backdoor was publicly known for years. This actually happened; it’s not a joke.
The motivation behind the FOIA requests is to attempt to see whether any funny business is going on with PQ crypto.
If the NSA actually suckers any major commercial player into using a broken PQ scheme without a well-established classical scheme as a backup, that will be risible too.
The closest thing we have to evidence that Dual_EC was exploited in the wild seems to be a bunch of circumstantial evidence around its role in the OPM hack which, if true, is much more of a "self own" than anything else.
Everybody who claimed Dual EC was a backdoor was right, and that backdoor was materially relevant to our industry. I couldn't believe something as dumb as Dual EC was a real backdoor; it seemed like such idiotic tradecraft. But the belief that Dual EC was so bad as tradecraft that it couldn't be real was, apparently, part of the tradecraft! Bernstein is right about that (even if he came to the conclusion at basically the same time as everyone else --- like, the instant you find out Juniper/Netscreen is using Dual EC, the jig is up).
What's annoying is that he's usually right, and sometimes even right in important new ways. But he runs the ball way past the end zone. Almost everybody in the field agrees with the core things he's saying, but almost nobody wants to get on board with his wild-eyed theories of how the suboptimal status quo is actually a product of the Lizard People.
When you discount his theories with that argument, your own reductio ad Lizardum (?) doesn’t help. There’s a world of distinction between NSA inserting backdoors, for which there’s good evidence but maybe not every time, and whatever you’re trying to paint his theory as by invoking the Lizard People.
maybe you don't know what risible means, but it reads like you're saying that the NSA "somehow" coercing someone is unlikely, which i'm sure you can agree is a "very naive and trusting view"
And, dropping the pedantry, it's quite frustrating to be deliberately or casually or in whatever way misrepresented by drive-by commenters in an otherwise apt discussion thread. Your comment and the one tptacek responded to are patronizing and dismissive and really don't contribute to any interesting discourse on the topic. I think it's fair to dismiss stupid drive-by low-effort quips, personally.
If you don't understand what I wrote, ask questions. What you did instead was leap to stupid conclusions.
They are also known for making very specific arguments that people misinterpret and fight over, but the actual intent and literal meaning of the statements is most often correct (IMO).
Whether this is a byproduct of trying to be exacting in the language used that tends to cause people interpretive problems or a specific tactic to expose those that are a combination of careless with their reading and willing to make assumptions rather than ask questions is unknown to me, but that doesn't change how it tends to play out, from my perspective.
In this case, I'll throw you a bone and restate his position as I understand it.
NIST ran the competition in question in a way such that all the judges referred each other, and all are very well known in the cryptographic field, and the suggestion by someone with more common game that they could be bribes in this manner (note not that the NSA would not attempt it, but the implication they would succeed with the people in question) is extremely unlikely, and that DJB would suggest as much knowing his fame may matter to people more than the facts of who these people are, is problematic.
Regarding Dual_EC: we still lack a lot of information about how this decision was made internally at NIST. That’s a core point: transparency was promised in the wake of discovered sabotage and it hasn’t arrived.
The American people deserve to know who picked up the phone or held a meeting to make this happen. Who was present, who at NIST knew what, and so on. Who internally had objections and indeed who set the policy in the first place. What whistleblower protections were in place and why didn’t the IG have involvement in public? Why did we have to learn about this from Snowden?
NSA has a dual mandate, on that I hope we can agree. It’s my understanding that part of their job is to secure things and that part of their job is to break stuff.
NIST has no such dual mandate, heads should roll at NIST. We probably agree that NSA probably won’t be accountable in any meaningful sense, but NIST must be - we are stuck with them. Not trusting them isn’t an option for anyone who files their taxes or banks or does any number of other regulated activities that require using NIST standards.
> Whether this is a byproduct of trying to be exacting in the language used that tends to cause people interpretive problems or a specific tactic to expose those that are a combination of careless with their reading and willing to make assumptions rather than ask questions is unknown to me
Communicating badly and then acting smug when misunderstood is not cleverness (https://xkcd.com/169/).
If many people do not understand the argument being made, it doesn't matter how "exacting" the language is - the writer failed at communicating. I don't have a stake in this, but from afar this thread looks like tptacek making statements so terse as to be vague, and then going "Gotcha! That's not the right interpretation!" when somebody attempts to find some meaning in them.
In short: If standard advice is "you should ask questions to understand my point", you're doing it wrong. This isn't "HN gathers to tease wisdom out of tptacek" - it's on him to be understood by the readers (almost all of which are lurkers!). Unless he doesn't care about that, but only about shouting (what he thinks are) logically consistent statements into the void.
If you made me guess about why NIST denied his FOIA requests, I'd say that Bernstein probably royally pissed everyone at NIST off before he made those requests, and they denied them because they decided the requests were being made in bad faith.
But they don't get to do that, so they're going to be forced to give up the documents. I'm sure when that happens Bernstein will paint it as an enormous legal victory, but the fact is that these outcomes are absolutely routine.
When we were FOIA'ing the Police General Orders for all the suburbs of Chicago, my own municipality declined to release theirs. I'd already been working with Topic on a (much more important) FOIA case from a friend of mine, so I reached out asking for him to write a nastygram for me. The nastygram cost me money --- but he told me having him sue would not! It was literally cheaper for me to have him sue my town than to have him write a letter, because FOIA suits have fee recovery terms.
I really can't emphasize enough how much suing a public body to force compliance with FOIA is just a normal part of the process. It sucks! But it's utterly routine.
Why are you asking me, when I was clear I was just stating my interpretation of his position, and he had already replied to me with even more clarification to his position?
> Communicating badly and then acting smug when misunderstood is not cleverness
I don't disagree. My observations should not be taken as endorsement for a specific type of behavior, if that's indeed what is being done.
That said, while I may dislike how the conversation plays out, I can't ignore that very often he has an intricate and we'll thought out position that is expressed succinctly, and in the few cases where someone treats the conversation with respect and asks clarifying questions rather than makes assumptions the conversation is clear and understanding is quickly reached between most parties.
I'm hesitant to lay the blame all on one side when the other side is the one jumping to conclusions and then refusing to accept their mistake when it's pointed out.
https://youtu.be/kx_G2a2hL6U?t=177
(I don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
If you RTFA you'd know it pertains to bribery, not coercion.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious: An attacker won't have to say "Oops, researcher X is working in public and has just found an attack; can we suppress this somehow?" if the attacker had the common sense to hire X years earlier, meaning that X isn't working in public. People arguing that there can't be sabotage because submission teams can't be bribed are completely missing the point.
He goes on to say: I coined the phrase "post-quantum cryptography" in 2003. It's not hard to imagine that the NSA/IDA post-quantum attack team was already hard at work before that, that they're years ahead of the public in finding attacks, and that NSA has been pushing NISTPQC to select algorithms that NSA secretly knows how to break.
Does this seem unreasonable, and if so, why?
He also remarks: Could such a weakness also be exploited by other large-scale attackers? Best bet is that the answer is yes. Would this possibility stop NSA from pushing for the weakness? Of course not.
Doesn’t sound to me like he only has concerns about bribery. Corruption of the standards to NSA’s benefit is one overarching issue. It’s not the only one, he has concerns about non-American capabilities as well.
The are many methods for the NSA to achieve a win.
Ridiculing people for worrying about this is totally lame and is harmful to the community.
To suggest a few dozen humans are beyond reproach from attack by the most powerful adversaries to ever exist is extremely naive at best. However that literally isn’t even a core point as Bernstein notes clearly.
I use djb’s crypto. Everybody knows his speculation. Everybody knows why he’s pursuing more information. Nobody disagrees more information would be a public good. Some people are more skeptical than others that he’ll find anything substantial.
> If you RTFA you'd know it pertains to bribery, not coercion
By quoting the article it seems the text directly contradicts your summary as being too narrow. General coercion is also be included as part of the concerns raised by TFA. He isn’t just talking about NSA giving a person a sack of money.
Meanwhile in this thread and on Twitter, many people are indeed doing the things you say that nobody is doing.
We almost all use Bernstein’s crypto — some as mere users, others as developers, etc. I’m not sure what that brings to the discussion.
I’m glad we agree that his work to gather more information is a public good.