2011.12.09 14:29:23 (145132938248458243) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "JP Aumasson (@veorq)" (145091081296551937):
@aumasson @matthew_d_green @cryptopathe The reality is that many standards are less secure, often much less secure, than some non-standards.
2011.12.05 14:28:53 (143683259157581825) from "JP Aumasson (@veorq)", replying to "Pascal Junod (@cryptopathe)" (143680783608053760):
@cryptopathe @hashbreaker OTOH stdness is the cheapest way to figure out which cipher does the job with high probability
2011.12.05 15:29:14 (143698447189553152) from "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)", replying to "JP Aumasson (@veorq)" (143683259157581825):
@aumasson @cryptopathe @hashbreaker ... but that I have so much in nonstandards being wrong. (to paraphrase Asimov).
2011.12.09 11:28:49 (145087498001985536) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)" (143698447189553152):
@matthew_d_green Seriously? Whenever you see non-standard crypto, you confidently say it's bad? You claim that Serpent is bad, for example?
2011.12.09 11:43:04 (145091081296551937) from "JP Aumasson (@veorq)":
@hashbreaker @matthew_d_green guess we all agree that Pr( bad | non-standard) >= Pr( bad | standard ) /cc @cryptopathe