Quoting Andrew McGlashan ([email protected]):
> The NIST problem is specific to /their/ earlier recommendations; and no,
> I don't think you can trust NIST.
For me specifically as opposed to most people here, the subversion of
NIST was particularly irritating because it's funded by _my_ tax
dollars. ('Their recommendtions' were seemingly fed to them by No Such
Agency -- and NIST had the abysmal judgement to accept same uncritically.)
> But if you stay clear of the particular NIST EC option, then other EC
> options are okay.
Well, that's the interesting question, isn't it? It's not at all clear
that such are OK. (Please see links.) Much has necessarily been cast
into doubt.
--
Cheers, Controversy is dreaded only by the advocates of error.
Rick Moen -- Benjamin Rush
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
luv-main mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
