The microblog: 2018.01.10 17:32:04

2018.01.10 17:32:04 (951129524070223872) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Scott Arciszewski (@CiPHPerCoder)" (950595657231945730):

There are 22 items in the CAESAR timeline, of which 17 are completed, the 2 most recent being July 2017. So what exactly do you mean by "stale" and "full of TBA"? And what would you expect to be communicated?

2018.01.10 17:34:52 (951130228163833856) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

As for NIST's post-quantum competition, quite a few of the submissions are terribly weak, which of course produced a flurry of comments. One of the reasons that CAESAR selection is difficult is that every remaining candidate seems reasonably strong.


2018.01.04 16:33:02 (948940342711242755) from "Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf)" = "Thomas "Secular Armenianist" Ptacek (@tqbf)", replying to "hannoπŸ’‰πŸ’‰πŸ’‰πŸ’‰ (@hanno)" (948939505754656769):

I am not a fan of the PHC, but it was well run and actually finished with a recommendation.

2018.01.04 16:38:58 (948941835476463622) from "Tony "Abolish ICE" Arcieri πŸ¦€πŸŒΉ (@bascule)", replying to "Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf)" = "Thomas "Secular Armenianist" Ptacek (@tqbf)" (948940342711242755):

I think the solution is for the organizer to not get distracted and wander off to some other crypto competition

2018.01.05 16:44:31 (949305621072920576) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Tony "Abolish ICE" Arcieri πŸ¦€πŸŒΉ (@bascule)" (948941835476463622):

The CAESAR submission teams received nearly 20000 words of comments (not evenly distributed; that's life), and the selection committee is waiting for responses. What precisely is your problem?

2018.01.09 06:10:40 (950595657231945730) from "Scott Arciszewski (@CiPHPerCoder)":

The overall lack of communication about the status of CAESAR, just a stale web page full of "TBA", combined with the fact that you and many of your colleagues are very active with PQCrypto makes it seem like CAESAR was abandoned midstream.