this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
95 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

76041 readers
2564 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"The problem in a nutshell. Surveillance agency NSA and its [UK counterpart] GCHQ are trying to have standards-development organizations endorse weakening [pre-quantum] ECC+PQ down to just PQ."

Part of this is that NSA and GCHQ have been endlessly repeating arguments that this weakening is a good thing... I'm instead looking at how easy it is for NSA to simply spend money to corrupt the standardization process.... The massive U.S. military budget now publicly requires cryptographic "components" to have NSA approval... In June 2024, NSA's William Layton wrote that "we do not anticipate supporting hybrid in national security systems"...

[Later a Cisco employee wrote of selling non-hybrid cryptography to a significant customer, "that's what they're willing to buy. Hence, Cisco will implement it".]

What do you do with your control over the U.S. military budget? That's another opportunity to "shape the worldwide commercial cryptography marketplace". You can tell people that you won't authorize purchasing double encryption. You can even follow through on having the military publicly purchase single encryption. Meanwhile you quietly spend a negligible amount of money on an independent encryption layer to protect the data that you care about, so you're actually using double encryption.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Same old tired song and dance.

[–] dragonfly4933@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It will be funny to see the ietf tls wg realize that they only have a tenuous grasp of control over the protocol. The very complexity that makes tls suck can be used to just ignore them, create their own suits, disable or not implement the trash they are peddling.

It's kind of crazy to see them basically ignore DJB and justify it with a technicality. This could go badly for them in the court of public opinion.

[–] ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

Nice username. I remember when they got away with using that name (minus the numbers) for the handshake to WPA3, and were deeply suspicion-inducing about whether the mathematician who authored that was on the NSA payroll or not.