Re: [Cfrg] Dual_EC_DRBG ... [was RE: Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair]

Validation labs do not get or want money for backdoors.

So, either quit your conspiratorial nonsense or take it to Hollywood,

-----Original Message-----
From: Cfrg [mailto:cfrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Back
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 2:09 PM
To: Dan Brown
Cc: Adam Back; 'cfrg@irtf.org'
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Dual_EC_DRBG ... [was RE: Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair]

Dan Brown wrote:
> [...]
> 8. All considered, I don't see how the ANSI and NIST standards for 
> Dual_EC_DRBG can be viewed as a subverted standard, per se.

Of course they're subverted.  We have Ferguson et al show how they could be backdoored.  We have internal NSA documents reported as talking about the subversion.  We have confirmation of RSA (inadvertently or not) accepting money to put a EC_DRBG as a default.  You yourself just said the validation labs are demanding the backdoored P & Q be used (and rejecting the provably uncooked implemented chosen parameters presumably).  NIST put the standard forward (inadvertently or not) from NSA input.

I am non-plussed at what you could be trying to say with the above statement.

Adam
_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
Cfrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg