Elektrine lite

← Feed

@filippo@abyssdomain.expert

Post #1202069

2026-04-06 18:13 UTC

@jornfranke I am a cryptography engineer so I can tell you from experience: no, ML-KEM and ML-DSA are easier to implement and easier to test than all their classical alternatives.

Replies (2)

  • @filippo I refer with implementation not in a specific library or tool, but a whole security system, e.g. integration into applications, into security operations. They will require significant changes in all aspects of the system and their operation.

    Open ##1202070

  • @simo5@fosstodon.org 2026-04-07 12:39

    @filippo @jornfranke I wouldn't say they are necessarily easier, but we stand on the shoulder of giants, these days we have tools and knowledge the RSA pioneers hadn't even dreamt of yet, so a lot of the pitfalls are much easier to avoid. The cryptography community also builds bullet proof algorithms these days, not just primitives everyone has to figure out how tp make secure by themselves. All that said ML-KEM and ML-DSA's power and timing side-channel analysis is much harder, but doable!

    Open ##1202072