Alright, I did a little bit of searching and found some links talking about the problems with ECC (since none of you fuckers provided links yourselves), but again it was about a specific standard and the parameters they chose (which is what I said). Archive them yourselves if you want.
https://www.wired.com/2007/11/securitymatters-1115/
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/10263/should-we-trust-the-nist-recommended-ecc-parameters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_up_my_sleeve_number
https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Elliptic_Curve_Cryptography
>>4261
>"HEY THE MATH!" isn't an argument: one wrong move any your crypto is trash
"HEY THE MATH" is the entire argument for why cryptography works.
>It's hard/impossible to validate if the implementation of ECC you are using is secure at all, if the constants used don't lead to backdoors keys
That's why usually when people choose starting parameters for random number generators, they choose something like "DEADBEEF" or some other quirky trivia number. They're actually called "nothing up my sleeve" numbers (see above). I'm pretty certain this could happen with any other random generator.
>because SUDDENLY it needs to be changed: and we can't have the men who worked on it originally to do so.
Maybe they left/got old? I mean people change roles after 25/30 years. Though I'm much less skeptical about this person's circumstances mainly because I'm not worried about ECC.
Also I've heard ECC is better for certain things (open ssl link).
>>4250
10+ years ago based off this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGIE7KTJiBY
Based off the voice pretty certain their name was Sarah before
>>4262
>It's had massive vulnerablilities that were discovered by opensource cryptographers (when they were men and doing it For Free, not hired tranny fucks doing it for Pay) in the early 2000s.
What are they? Could you give a link?
> Don't you remember on vulnsec mailing list and slashdot, and everything about the ECC mathematical vulns? Don't you? Isn't it in your memory?
Not it isn't. Link it so I can learn more.
Also
>>4261 and
>>4262
>We
That's not how shit works here