Re: [Cfrg] should the CFRG really strive for consensus?

[Christoph Anton Mitterer <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2014-12-31 at 14:44 +0000, Adam Langley wrote:
> If you believe in the security of curve25519 then you also believe in
> the security of Microsoft's current position at ~128 bits. They have
> the same structure and thus strictly the same strength.
My point wasn't specifically about that discrepancy between curve25519
and MS' position... as you pointed out already in your previous email,
they have the same security, by all means of current knowledge....


> IRTF groups do not, technically, have to reach consensus. However,
> everyone does have to function on the same Internet at the end of the
> day.
... my point was rather about the general political problem that still
hides behind the "now open and no longer NIST controlled"
standardisation process of crypto stuff:
Even though the current example of MS vs. "everyone else" may not be a
security problem, it still shows that the whole process would be kinda
"vulnerable" to manipulations - namely if a big player puts pressure on
the CFRG on behalf of his own ideas (which may - or may not - have some
evil hidden within).


Cheers,
Chris.