The microblog: 2020.04.20 06:38:56

2020.04.20 06:38:56 (1252094373220634624) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)" (1251727866309591041):

So each cryptographer claims success on the basis of the field of crypto as a whole having usage? Perhaps, but how would this marketing counteract the strong paper-writing incentive? Proactive security interferes with paper-writing and doesn't seem to add to total crypto usage.


2020.04.19 00:32:19 (1251639726819270656) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)" (1251636638322696193):

Can you please state clearly which metric you're using for the allegedly "huge" success of the "field of crypto"? You keep giving alleged examples but not stating the metric. Readers can't figure out if the metric sees, e.g., OpenSSL's upcoming emergency patch as a failure.

2020.04.19 00:50:21 (1251644262795657217) from "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)":

The fact that there are failures, even big ones, does not take away from the many successes. We need to always try to do better, but this doesn’t take away the value of what is being done. But this isn’t the answer you’re looking for but I don’t know what is.

2020.04.19 01:17:52 (1251651188174422018) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)" (1251644262795657217):

When I describe how the incentive structures in crypto lead to security failures for users, you object, saying the "field of crypto" is a "huge" success. You don't define the success metric but you categorically state that failures don't "take away" from it. Did I get that right?

2020.04.19 06:22:33 (1251727866309591041) from "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)":

As I wrote, my objections were primarily to what Diffie wrote (and I admittedly replied to the wrong tweet). However, I can certainly have this argument anyway. The success metric is the use of non trivial cryptographic methods in practice.