🚀 go-pugleaf

Let me start by saying that my opinions may or may not count for much, as I
don't pursue cryptography as a career, but rather as an interested observer.
I also subscribe to the belief that software patents serve no useful purpose
except to enrich the coffers of large corporations, all the while inhibiting
useful work.

Anyway, I just finished reading the IEEE Spectrum special issue on data
security and I really have a hard time believing that they could present such
a biased view of the NIST DSS issue.  I also had a similar problem with the
sneering attitude presented in the Communications of the ACM special issue on
cryptography.  In both magazines, the editors introduction to the issue
carried a sneering tone and implied that anyone who didn't immediately go out
and jump on the RSADSI bandwagon and whole-heartedly support this ``de facto
industry standard'' must perforce be a lackey of the NSA.

The ACM articles allowed Rivest, et al., completely free rein to spout off
with criticism of the NIST DSS, which seemed to boil down to three main issues:

	1) RSA has a bandwagon - you better jump on!

	2) NSA advised NIST on DSS -- they must have inserted a trap door!

	3) 512 bits won't work as a maximum key length.

In other words, both magazines allowed people with vested *financial* interest
in one side of the issue to present their personal views as scholarly
criticism of the NIST DSS.

I personally find it hard to go along with the RSA bandwagon argument.
Supposedly, the RSA patent has existed for *ten* years already.  In that time,
where one might expect to see a product or two.  I don't see *any* products on
the market.  This reminds me of the ACE bandwagon, the OSF/1 bandwagon, ...

Overall, I think the IEEE did a better job of presenting the NIST/NSA side of
the issue -- the ACM articles only managed to do a lot of sneering and
giggling about how inept NIST acted in allowing NSA in the door.

I also admit to some distrust of the NSA.  However, in spite of years of
criticism of DES and lots of people speculating about trap doors, none seem to
exist.  I want to see a discussion of the pros and cons of DSS, not sneering
remarks and specious arguments.  I also want to see a *national* level debate
of how the ``crytpography as munitions'' policy costs the US in terms of lost
business, lost competitive edge, etc.

Overall, the ACM articles disappointed me since I expected scholarly behavior
and I got childish sneering and name calling.  The IEEE articles raised real
issues of policy and actually allowed the NSA and NIST to defend themselves,
but still stooped to sneering and specious arguments, especially Rivest's
response to the NSA.  Bidzos at least brought up real policy issues about
competitiveness in addition the the ``hop on the bandwagon'' cheer.  I expect
better of both magazines.

/Joe
Obviously my personal opinions.