For your web inspector console:<p><pre><code> $("body").html($("body").html().replace(/Clyde Frog/g, "the NSA"))
</code></pre>
Update: more proper<p><pre><code> $("body").html($("body").html().replace(/Clyde[\s\r\n]Frog/g, "the NSA").replace(/\. t/g, ". T"))</code></pre>
Tangential forward-looking paranoia:<p>I've got to wonder if the DUAL_EC debacle only appears so ham-fisted because the public understanding of public key crypto is much further ahead than our understanding of symmetric ciphers. Universities employ armies of mathematicians studying mathematical structures for their own right, whereas shuffling bits isn't sexy.<p>Conversely, "Clyde Frog" has been studying symmetric ciphers much longer and harder (symmetric is sufficient for nation-state security) and could have a deep symbolic understanding of common symmetric constructions akin to how we see the public-key math. They would then know how to choose constants that admit similar backdoors, and the entropy of "nothing up my sleeve numbers" isn't exactly well quantified.<p>Rather than a proactive attempt, DUAL_EC could have been a <i>reaction</i> to worries about movement to RNGs based on asymmetric math.
May I just say, I am extremely happy that the NSA has to jump through such incredibly laborious hoops to gain a glimpse into anything, a capability which they would then fail to acknowledge at any price.<p>This is the OPPOSITE of a dictatorship, where there would simply be a heavy-handed order to put in an explicit, acknowledged back door or be jailed without trial, or executed.<p>This is what freedom looks like. Enjoy it!<p>I personally also enjoy the fact that nobody with a few million dollars in spare change can surf the dark web as Dr. evil. But that's just me.<p><i>EDIT: this comment is at -1, perhaps people thought I was making a ham-fisted sarcastic statement. I'm speaking literally. You all can keep either your dictatorship, or the society in which someone can commit an act of terrorism for the going black market rate without any repercussions; if it's a false dichotomy, you'll have to explain why.</i><p><i>EDIT 2: this comment is fluctuating wildly (-2, +2, 0, etc) especially since my edit. Thoughtful replies would probably be more helpful than voting here.</i>
<i>Except for Hoffman’s last proposal, the extensions are cordoned off to the US Government. The sponsors of the standards and their authors make very little effort to provide a use case for normal Internet users.</i><p>If this were an X-Files episode, then the group who really runs the world would be forcing the USG to subvert it's own crypto.
Why would Certicom bother filing a patent(s) on this. The only likely buyer/licensee would be a nation state - which can easily appropriate whatever IP it desires. Further, NSA paying/licensing with a foreign company (Canadian Certicom) only adds to the number of people in the know. Likely Certicom realized this and contributes to the reason why some of the patent applications were never pursued beyond provisional patent applications.
Certainly seems like a very well crafted but poorly executed plot to me. The tricky thing is how the hell do you really expose it? There are so many levels of obfuscation both by the people who are putting forth the proposal and the technical details as well.
Can anyone figure out whether USG is Unix Systems Group or United States Government. (I think we're safe in assuming they aren't United States Gypsum (though, from my trips through Empire to Gerlach, that was the first thing that came to mind)).
[Edit - if you read through the entire (epic and wonderful resource) article, United States Government is used where USG might be - so I think we are safe in assuming it is United States Government. tptacek, might be worth introducing the acronym at the beginning.]
I hate to ask a dumb question, but the article discusses the actions of Clyde Frog a lot. Is Clyde Frog a person, a company, a government project, or what? A web search found a TV show and a stuffed animal, so I'm honestly puzzled.<p>Edit: thanks cmg. I was reading the article on my phone and the side notes were off screen so I totally missed the explanation.
That is because Jerry Solinas works for the NSA. Jerry Solinas @ NSA @ jasolin@orion.ncsc.mil.<p>Notice that the company "Clyde Frog" doesn't have a company website. Notice that Jerry Solinas don't have a Linked-In profile.
It may be my (somewhat archaic) sense of crypto humor, but any time I read the term "Dual EC", my mind says "CE lauD", making it sound like someone saying the word "cloud" with an accent expressing a lot of disdain[1].<p>Anyway, the Dual EC backdoor, if real, along with the extra randomness, may yet prove to be part of "the gubment's" very own cloudbusting operation, to make cloud services rain users' secrets at the push of a button...<p>[1]: <i>cf.</i> "my butt"
Doesn't this essay absolutely bury one of the most important parts of this scandal, that RSA used DUAL_EC as the default random number generator in their FIPS certified encryption product for almost a decade!?! I note that this is glossed over with a description so marginal I would tempted to call it dishonest if I were not trying to apply the principle of charity to its author. "RSA BSAFE had support for DUAL_EC." Support!? Uh no, it used it as the default generator.<p>"I lean towards “not”; the structure of these proposals makes Clyde Frog’s job needlessly harder, if only by practically ensuring that OpenSSL and Schannel would never default to enabling them. But people smarter than me are convicted of the idea that this was a backdoor attempt." Well yeah it would make their job harder unless one of the largest security companies in the world used that random generator in their flagship encryption product!!!<p>I feel like maybe their are better arguments for why this was not a subversion attempt, but honestly the points for seem so, <i>so</i> strong and the points against seem like a mountain of wishy-washy humming and hawwing and extending the principle of charity even in the face of the above mentioned giant blaring klaxon of wrong-doing. I will still not say that reasonable people can't disagree over the question at hand but the arguments presented in this article don't strike me as being anywhere near strong enough to make this the sort of grey area the author would like.