Me, I figure that extraordinary claims require a smidgen of actual evidence.
It's really easy to say that a decade ago, system foo had back doors snuck in
it. But -- what were the back doors? A bum random number generator? Keygen that
made RSA keys with a known, fixed prime? What?
My view is that if the claim is merely for back doors without saying what they
are, there's an obvious reason for that -- if you said that there's flaw X
which was in module M.c on lines 23-137, someone could actually go look at M.c
and see what they are. But this way, the slur has been made in a way that is
impossible to discuss. I think evidence is called for, or failing that, and
actual description of the flaw.
Jon
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
