The microblog: 2020.04.19 00:02:44

2020.04.19 00:02:44 (1251632282164539393) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)" (1251627053054599169):

Sorry, I'm still missing answers to my clarification questions. I understand your examples of deployed crypto, but I don't understand what metric is being used to declare the "huge" success of the "field", and I don't understand what you think you're disputing in what I wrote.


2020.04.18 07:45:06 (1251386251346948096) from "JP Aumasson (@veorq)":

Great thread by Dan. We need specialists in crypto research, but overspecialization can be a curse. See also my talk Криптография сегодня about what makes a good cryptographer today

2020.04.18 19:27:19 (1251562969349185538) from "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)", replying to "JP Aumasson (@veorq)" (1251386251346948096):

I don’t agree with this. The field of crypto has been hugely successful in developing tools that are useful in practice and are in wide use. The gap between academia and industry is much smaller in crypto than in most other fields.

2020.04.18 23:22:56 (1251622263410970624) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)" (1251562969349185538):

Clarification questions: What's your metric for judging the "success"/"use" of the "field of crypto"? Where's the data showing the field is doing well in this metric? I get that you're praising the field, but it's really not clear what you're claiming and what you're disputing.

2020.04.18 23:41:58 (1251627053054599169) from "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)":

There are many examples. CCA security as a notion was ready well before Bleichenbacher and so could be used as a mitigation. The whole provable security methodology for padding, modes of encryption, key exchange has been very influential. Note that CCA was laughed at initially.