On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 4:26 PM Stephan Mueller <smueller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, dem 23.12.2020 um 15:32 +0100 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld: > > > > I would, however, be interested in a keccak-based construction. But > > just using the keccak permutation does not automatically make it > > "SHA-3", so we're back at the same issue again. FIPS is simply not > > interesting for our requirements. > > Using non-assessed cryptography? Sounds dangerous to me even though it may be > based on some well-known construction. "assessed" is not necessarily the same as FIPS. Don't conflate the two. I don't appreciate that kind of dishonest argumentation. And new constructions that I'm interested in would be formally verified (like the other crypto work I've done) with review and buy-in from the cryptographic community, both engineering and academic. I have no interest in submitting "non-assessed" things developed in a vacuum, and I'm displeased with your attempting to make that characterization. Similarly, any other new design proposed I would expect a similar amount of rigor. The current RNG is admittedly a bit of a mess, but at least it's a design that's evolved. Something that's "revolutionary", rather than evolutionary, needs considerably more argumentation. So, please, don't strawman this into the "non-assessed" rhetoric.
