supernetworks_

“ Cursor has also given SpaceX the right to acquire Cursor later this year for $60 billion”

That isn’t an agreement to buy

WPA3 moved from PBKDF to ECDH. AES CCMP and GCMP are still the underlying block ciphers in WPA3 with some other extensions for China

I wasn’t talking about P curves, I was talking about NSA having acted as a malicious actor in general so I misunderstood their comment

Ah now I see what the question was as it seemed like a non sequitur. I misunderstood the comment by foxboron to be concerns about any backdoors not that P256 is backdoored, I hold no such view of that, surely bitcoin should be good evidence.

Instead I was stating that weaknesses in cryptography have been historically put there with some NSA involvement at times.

For DB: The brain pool curves do have a worse leak, but as stated in the dragon blood paper “we believe that these sidechannels are inherent to Dragonfly”. The first attack submission did hit P-256 setups before the minimal iteration count was increased and afterward was more applicable to same-system cache/ micro architectural bugs. These attacks were more generally correctly mitigated when H2C deterministic algorithms rolled out. There’s many bad choices that were selected of course to make the PAKE more exploitable, putting the client MAC in the pre commits, having that downgrade, including brain pool curves. but to my point on committees— cryptographers warned strongly when standardizing that this could be an attack and no course correction was taken.

yes dragon blood. I’m not speaking of the downgrade but the timing sidechannels — which were called out very loudly and then ignored during standardization. and then the PAKE showed up in wpa3 of all places, that was the key issue and was extended further in a brain pool curve specific attack for the proposed initial mitigation. It’s a good example of error by committee I do not address that article and don’t know why the NSA advised migration that early.

The riddle paper I’ve not read in a long time if ever, though I don’t understand the question. As Scott Aaronson recently blogged it’s difficult to predict human progress with technology and it’s possible we’ll see shors algorithm running publicly sooner than consensus. It could be that in 2035 the NSA’s call 20 years prior looks like it was the right one in that ECC is insecure but that wouldn’t make the replacements secure by default ofc

The task for teaching is much harder now as these need to be combined into hybrid PQC protocols

How are we doing on loss for fiber coupling these days and have we gotten the tech to the point where photonic QC will definitely scale

Manufacturing is affected also it’s not just software. Best way around it is deficit spending for growth