
 A few more notes on NSA random number generators - wglb
http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/12/a-few-more-notes-on-nsa-random-number.html
======
doe88
What's funny it that this same Dan Brown without any shame is still pushing
for this algorithm [1, 2]. I'm not for a witch hunt but I really think there
really are some people / organizations that are toxic and do not seek our best
interests in these standards.

[1] [http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/cfrg/current/msg03651.h...](http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/cfrg/current/msg03651.html)

[2] [http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/cfrg/current/threads.ht...](http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/cfrg/current/threads.html#03651)

------
oakwhiz
Highlights of this article:

>In fact, a complete history of Dual_EC_DRBG would begin with the ANSI X9.82
DRBG standardization process, which kicked off in the early 2000s.

>You'll also find Dual_EC_DRBG in the international standard ISO 18031.

>Dual_EC_DRBG is not the only asymmetric random number generator in the ANSI
and ISO standards.

>Since MS-DRBG comes from the same people who brought you Dual_EC, if you are
using it you might want to think twice.

These are some interesting points that I haven't heard anybody mention when
talking about the recent Dual_EC_DRBG fiasco.

