Post #3576184
2026-06-30 05:33 UTC
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to @katzenmann@c3d2.social The fact that you call what I linked "solo-PQ endorsement" when it says no such thing is a good example.
Also, I have no interest in discussing this with you, you can keep that on the IETF mailing lists.
Replies (1)
-
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to 2026-06-30 11:52
@neverpanic@chaos.social @katzenmann@c3d2.social 1st page you cited (https://web.archive.org/web/20251225222528/https://keymaterial.net/2025/11/27/ml-kem-mythbusting/) includes "if you really think ML-KEM is broken, then yes, the NSA has successfully undermined the IETF in order to make their own systems less secure, while not impacting anyone else". Again, this claims that solo-PQ endorsement will result solely in NSA usage. 2nd page (https://web.archive.org/web/20260511083730/https://words.filippo.io/crqc-timeline/) says "we should go straight to pure ML-DSA-44" and, as I said, claims that the first quantum attacks instantly remove ECC's value.