New to the list, so I'm sorry if I missed it, but what was the evidence presented that RSA took a $10M payoff to make Dual EC DRBG the default in Crypto-C?
Thanks, -Jared > On Sep 22, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Peter Gutmann <pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > ianG <i...@iang.org> writes: > >> One mystery is left for me. Why so much? It clearly doesn't cost that much >> money to implement the DRBG, or if it did, I would have done it for $5m, >> honest injun! Nor would it cost that to test it nor to deploy it on mass. >> Documentation, etc. > > You're assuming that someone got passed a suitcase full of cash and that was > it. Far more likely that RSA got a $10M contract for some government work > and > at some point that included a request to make the ECDRBG the default for > <insert plausible-sounding reason here>. All quite above board, nothing > terribly suspicious to raise eyebrows. > > Peter. > _______________________________________________ > cryptography mailing list > cryptography@randombit.net > http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
