Post #1249800

2026-04-11 15:46 UTC

@djb @darkuncle Everything I wrote is simple and consistent and, if you look at the context of when they were made, easy to follow. For those just jumping in. 1. As a long-time person involved with the IETF I have not seen any hidden/coercive NSA involvement. 2. I accept that the EFF budget piece is accurate. 3. The term "crazy conspiracy thinking" referred to your blog posts on this topic. I do not argue with NSA/NIST and pointed out why they could do that in the past. I find it amusing that ISO refused to standardize NSA's Simon and Speck. Perhaps they're not as good at influence as they used to be.

Replies (2)

@jzb@hachyderm.io 2026-04-11 16:12

@rsalz @djb @darkuncle dumb questions from the sidelines: 1: doesn’t it make sense to treat NSA preferences with a bit of suspicion given their history and mission? 2: if there is strong opposition to non-hybrid, besides djb’s, doesn’t that bear listening to? What’s the benefit here in overriding the concerns? Very much not a crypto expert, I’m assuming there’s a lot I don’t know or understand here. Appreciate any answers.

Open ##1249801
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to 2026-04-12 19:41

@rsalz @darkuncle NSA has a huge budget to "covertly influence and/or overtly leverage" cryptographic designs: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/04/09/20130905-guard-sigint_enabling.pdf NSA _paying_ the RSA company to put Dual EC into RSA's BSafe library (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9BJ1C220131220/) is an example of overt leverage towards the RSA company, and of covert influence for the public not knowing about this. Same for NSA _paying_ companies to put non-hybrids into products. Do you dispute these examples of covert influence and/or overt leverage? If so, why?

Open ##1249807