• Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    1 year ago

    This office needs a parking garage.
    Why the fuck are americans always building 2 dimensional except for their buildings???

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Even our local grocery store that is probably ¼ of the size of a typical Walmart (Edeka center in Germany) has a 2 story parking deck and another underground parking garage under the literal store.

        Edit: To answer to your comment: This has theme park level parking. They should install a round trip subway under or surface tram at the place

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they have the space. It’s hard for us Europeans to understand. In places where they don’t, they certainly go below ground - look at Microsoft’s parking garage in Redmond.

  • bedrooms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    Daniel Bernstein at the University of Illinois Chicago says that the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is deliberately obscuring the level of involvement the US National Security Agency (NSA) has in developing new encryption standards for “post-quantum cryptography” (PQC).

    This sentence is basically all.

  • solanaceous@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    So I wrote a long-ass rundown of this but it won’t post for some reason (too long)? So TLDR: this is a 17,600-word nothingburger.

    DJB is a brilliant, thorough and accomplished cryptographer. He has also spent the past 5 years burning his reputation to the ground, largely by exhaustively arguing for positions that correlate more with his ego than with the truth. Not just this position. It’s been a whole thing.

    DJB’s accusation, that NSA is manipulating this process to promote a weaker outcome, is plausible. They might have! It’s a worrisome possibility! The community must be on guard against it! But his argument that it actually happened is rambling, nitpicky and dishonest, and as far as I can tell the other experts in the community do not agree with it.

    So yes, take NIST’s recommendation for Kyber with a grain of salt. Use Kyber768 + X448 or whatever instead of just Kyber512. But also take DJB’s accusations with a grain of salt.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly at this point… I’d be surprised if they are seriously undermining encryption. NIST and NSA need encryption to work to protect the government itself … they’re to my knowledge not staffed by idiots, and a lot has changed since the 90s and early 2000s. Encryption is a core portion of security in 2023.

  • bitcrafter@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was curious to hear what argument they were making but the article is behind a paywall. Could someone with access to it summarize for me?

    I am curious because this seems a bit implausible to me given that the protocol selection process involves an open competition.

      • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Paywalled for me too (or rather, it requires “registration” which is basically the same thing - I’m not opposed to paying for a good article but I am opposed to giving them my personal details).

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Really. I hope everyone saw this coming. The process has also been weirdly slow. I’m not sure why everyone is waiting up for NIST.

      Thankfully, PQ HTTPS is just around the corner now, and I imagine other TLS-based protocols won’t be far behind.

      • flatbield@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is the problem with encryption. It only provides security over a period of time. Always better to keep data on your own hardware in your own place.

        Quantum is also more of an issues for public key crypto. Symmetric key crypto is different.

          • Godort@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Asymmetric key exchange works by utilising a complex math equation involving massive exponents that is easy to run to get an answer, but very hard to use that answer to get the numbers you started with.

            With traditional computers, you essentially need to try every combination of numbers through trial and error to get the starting values.

            Quantum computers are almost purpose built for this kind of math and can solve those types of problems exponentially faster than traditional computers.

            However, for a symmetric key, there isn’t an exchange that can be attacked, both sides already know the key.

            • xylem@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is still a quantum attack against symmetric key crypto like AES, but it just reduces the effective key size by half. If you use long enough keys (256 bits) you’re still fine.

          • flatbield@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Others know a lot more about this then I do. The short answer is that some problems that are hard to solve now can be easily solved with quantum computers. Factorization of large integers is one of those things that is easily solved and public key crypto is based on that sort of problem. Hence the panic. Symmetric key crypto is not.

            I think it comes down to just because quantum computers can solve some problems easily it does not mean they can solve all problems easily. Each situation needs to be looked at.