On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:58:35PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > Note that Linux > > doesn't bow down to any particular standards organization, and it offers > > algorithms that were specified in various places, even some with no more than a > > publication by the author. In fact, support for SM4 was just added too, which > > is a Chinese government standard. Are you going to send a patch to remove that > > too, or is it just NSA designed algorithms that are not okay? > > No need to be belittling; I have much less tinfoil strapped around my > head than perhaps you think. I'm not blindly opposed to > government-designed algorithms. Take SHA2, for example -- built by the > NSA. > > But I do care quite a bit about using ciphers that have acceptance of > the academic community and a large body of literature documenting its > design decisions and analyzing it..... So where is the large body of literature documenting the design decisions of SM2? Has it received as much analysis as Speck? And if not, why aren't you gunning after it? - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fscrypt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|