News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work (2015) by tialaramex on Friday July 28, 2023 @05:50AM (#36904755)
We don't need very much of this work.

Unlike in many fields, there is no value in a cheap local substitute for cryptographic algorithms. Indeed vanity ciphers (many smaller powers wanted their own symmetric ciphers for national pride reasons) fell out of favour because they're just worse in practice.

So the competition for your Cryptographic hash isn't some idea by a guy from the next town, it's SHA-512/256 and maybe SHA-3.

Try something else, should the US Government have a department which vets architectural plans for a new Capitol building. Sure, the US Capitol is a pre-civil war building, and there's no reason it would be torn down and rebuilt or replaced as a whole, but surely it's unfair to just have one dead guy get to design the Capitol when who knows, Suzy, a ten year old from Maryland, who has no architectural training and mostly just thinks everything should have ponies on it, might have a better design? Why are there so many Gatekeepers? Suzy's design for the Capitol might be great, it's unfair that she's not considered just because she isn't an expert and they don't need a new one designed.

Re:The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work (2015) by keepamovin on Friday July 28, 2023 @06:00AM (#36904817)
There are indeed established standards just a few for each area like hashing, authentication, encryption and so on--one of the things I'm staying.

However, the idea that work is almost complete in crypto, and therefore new work is unneeded, is false (and likely an artefact of the order I'm describing). Take for instance this current work on ZK hashes: https://www.zellic.io/blog/algebraic-attacks-on-zk-hash-func...