/tech/ - Technology

A Technical Place

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


NSA trying to push bad standards Anonymous 09/22/2017 (Fri) 19:10:41 [Preview] No. 11265
Oh, hey, look the NSA doing it again. First Clipper chip, then IPsec, now the "Simon and Speck":

>An international group of cryptography experts has forced the U.S. National Security Agency to back down over two data encryption techniques it wanted set as global industry standards, reflecting deep mistrust among close U.S. allies.
>More than a dozen of the experts involved in the approval process for Simon and Speck feared that if the NSA was able to crack the encryption techniques, it would gain a "back door" into coded transmissions, according to the interviews and emails and other documents seen by Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-standards-insight/distrustful-u-s-allies-force-spy-agency-to-back-down-in-encryption-fight-idUSKCN1BW0GV


Anonymous 09/22/2017 (Fri) 22:19:33 [Preview] No. 11267 del
(25.79 KB 450x298 hammer.jpg)
Didn't the NSA have a massive part in developing RSA which is used by default by GPG?


Anonymous 09/22/2017 (Fri) 22:48:37 [Preview] No. 11269 del
>>11265 (me)
>>11267
US Government has many money directioned to security research (especially on NSF). It doesn't mean the things they produce are backdoored or not. SELinux, for example, is a development of NSA, but served as a good approach at his time.

But, some things are not safe as many people thougt. NSA has an historic of pushing bad standards and influencing IETF. Bruce Scheneir (developer of Twofish), for example, affirmed on his blog that IPsec is purposefully weak, so security agencies can break it...


Anonymous 09/23/2017 (Sat) 01:33:01 [Preview] No. 11271 del
>>11267
>Didn't the NSA have a massive part in developing RSA
No.


Anonymous 09/23/2017 (Sat) 02:11:35 [Preview] No. 11272 del
>>11271
He means the NIST standard suite, which is true. Regardless, gpg release already includes plenty other ciphers like curve25119, chacha, some quantum ones, etc..
Friend and I play w/Curve25119 right now 4fun


Anonymous 09/23/2017 (Sat) 03:55:09 [Preview] No. 11273 del
>>11272
>He means the NIST standard suite
What's that?


Anonymous 09/23/2017 (Sat) 18:56:45 [Preview] No. 11277 del
>>11274
You are a waste of flesh.

Anyway, I'll answer the question for you. No, although NSA Suite B cryptography is an NSA recommendation, the NSA did not have "a massive part" in developing the algorithms in it, as your fellow retard suggested re: RSA.

AES, for example, which is the recommended symmetric cipher in the suite, uses an algorithm called Rijndael, which was developed by two European cryptographers, Vincent Rijmen and Joan Daemen. Rijndael was submitted to the Advanced Encryption Standard contest (and won), which was sponsored by NIST, but it was not created by the NSA.


Anonymous 09/24/2017 (Sun) 00:33:04 [Preview] No. 11279 del
>>11277
For a waste of flesh, your clarity to respond the individual that questioned is endearing.

Still, would you trust NIST standards to save a life? I'm sure Edward Snowden values their time preaching how Apple will save privacy with GPG 2.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply