The microblog: 2021.09.09 17:34:17

2021.09.09 17:34:17 (1435989947631030273) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1435987978766241802):

The rules were clear from the outset. All committee communications were clearly labeled and strictly followed the rules. The claims you're making are factually incorrect no matter how often you repeat them. I also see no sign that you've read the applicable portion of the paper.


2021.09.09 14:17:18 (1435940374699151372) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "mjos\dwez (@mjos_crypto)" (1435881427795599364):

NSA "actively engages the U.S. and foreign IT industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial products’ designs" to make them "exploitable". This goes far beyond military purchasing. See and Section 3.6 of

2021.09.09 16:09:46 (1435968676868464645) from "azet (@a_z_e_t)":

reading the analysis on competitions; I remember CAESAR very well. I remember some of the teams becoming desperate with the process. no one knew about even a rough time line nor under which criteria algos were actually promoted. one rejection/review I've seen was sketchy at best.

2021.09.09 17:19:51 (1435986315066019844) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "azet (@a_z_e_t)" (1435968676868464645):

From "The submitter/submitters understand that the committee will not comment on the algorithms". Whatever misinformation you heard from some sore losers, maybe consider (1) engaging in basic fact-checking and (2) not hijacking unrelated threads? Thanks!

2021.09.09 17:26:28 (1435987978766241802) from "azet (@a_z_e_t)":

It's not misinformation. I know that's what it says on the website. I also know that some explanations were given to rejectees. No one I remember was a sore loser, I talked to winning teams, 2nd+3rd round candidates etc., sorry if you don't value feedback to an interesting paper.