C.<p>Daniel J. Bernstein (<a href="https://mindly.social/tags/djb" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>djb</span></a>, to those who know and love him [1]) has a new blog entry about the NIST post-quantum <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/cryptography" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>cryptography</span></a> standardization process that's been ongoing for some years. Also, follow him <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.cr.yp.to/@djb" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>djb</span></a></span> .</p><p>If you're not aware of some of the controversy about how NIST is running this process, it's a must-read.</p><p><a href="https://blog.cr.yp.to/20250423-mceliece.html" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">blog.cr.yp.to/20250423-mceliec</span><span class="invisible">e.html</span></a></p><p>My $0.02: it sure looks like NIST is backstopping an attempt by the NSA to get everyone to standardize on cryptography <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/standards" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>standards</span></a> that the <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/NSA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>NSA</span></a> knows how to break.</p><p>Again.</p><p>Yes, they did it before. If you read up on the Dual_EC calamity and its fallout, and how this time it was supposed to be different - open, transparent, secure - then prepare to be disappointed. NIST is playing <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/Calvinball" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Calvinball</span></a> with their rules for this contest, yanking the rug out from under contenders that appear to be more <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/secure" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>secure</span></a> and better understood, while pushing alternatives that are objectively worse (<a href="https://mindly.social/tags/weaker" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>weaker</span></a> encryption, less studied, poorer <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/performance" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>performance</span></a>).</p><p>Frankly, I think organizations outside of the <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/USA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>USA</span></a> would be foolish to trust anything that comes out of <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/NIST" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>NIST</span></a>'s current work. Well, those inside the USA too, but some of those may be forced by law to use whatever NIST certifies.</p><p>[1] Some people think djb is "prickly", not lovable. Oddly, it seems that the only people who say this are those who are wildly incorrect about code/algorithms and are being gently but publicly corrected about by djb at the time</p><p><a href="https://mindly.social/tags/quantum" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>quantum</span></a> <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/PostQuantum" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PostQuantum</span></a> <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/PostQuantumCryptography" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PostQuantumCryptography</span></a></p>