I think you're describing the models from a year ago. Most of the improvements in capability since then (and the improvements have been really large) are directly due to changes that have the AI model talk to itself to better reason out its response before providing it, and one of the results of that is that most of the time they absolutely can explain why they did what they did. There are exceptions, but they are the exception, not the rule.

It's interesting to compare this with humans. Humans generally can give you an explanation for why they did what they did, but research has demonstrated pretty conclusively that a large majority of the time those explanations are made up after the fact, they're actually post-hoc justifications for decisions that were made in some subconscious process. Researchers have demonstrated that people are just as good at coming up with explanations for decisions they didn't make as for decisions they did! The bottom line is that people can't really provide useful insights on why they did what they did, they're just really good at inventing post-hoc rationales.

If you're asserting that Greg Kroah-Hartman can't code worth a damn, you might want to find out who he is and think again.

And the law of large numbers. Statistically, there will but patch clusters, the same way there are clusters of every other random-ish event. The fact that one happens to occur right after Microsoft promises a commitment to predictable patch schedules means not just nothing the but opposite. Any commitment to doing better means that they recognize they haven't been doing well enough, and obviously it's not possible to do significantly better immediately; changing processes takes time, and observing the effects of those changes takes even longer.

So, no, this cluster of patches doesn't tell us anything in particular beyond what we already knew: That emergency patches are relatively common.

Yes, but... I think you're confusing some things. We're talking about AES, which is a symmetric encryption algorithm, not asymmetric.

Of course, no cryptographic construction has been "proven" secure, in the sense that mathematicians use the word "prove", not symmetric or asymmetric. Asymmetric schemes have an additional challenge, though, which is they have to have some sort of "trapdoor function" that mathematically relates a public key and a private key, and the public key has to be published to the attacker. Classical asymmetric cryptography is built by finding a hard math problem and building a scheme around it -- which means that a solution to the math problem breaks the algorithm.

Symmetric systems have it a bit easier, because the attacker doesn't get to see any part of the key or anything related to the key other than plaintext and corresponding ciphertext (though the standard bar is to assume the attacker has an oracle that allows them to get plaintext of arbitrary ciphertexts, i.e. the Adaptive Chosen Ciphertext attack, IND-CCA2). And the structure of symmetric ciphers isn't usually built around a specific math problem. Instead, they tend to just mangle the input in extremely complex ways. It's hard to model these mathematically, which makes attacking them with math hard.

In both cases, we are unable to prove that they're secure. When I started working on cryptography, the only basis for trust in algorithms was that they'd stood up to scrutiny for a long period of time. That was it. Over the last 20 years or so, we've gotten more rigorous, and "security proofs" are basically required for anyone to take your algorithm seriously today... but they aren't quite like "proofs" in the usual sense. They're more precisely called "reductions". They're mathematically-rigorous proofs that the security of the algorithm (or protocol) is reducible to a small set of assumptions -- but we have to assume those, because we can't prove them.

For most asymmetric schemes, the primary underlying assumption is that the mathematical problem at the heart of the scheme is "hard". Interestingly, there is one family of asymmetric signature schemes for which this is not true. SLH-DSA, one of the post-quantum algorithms recently standardized by NIST, provably reduces to one assumption: That the hash algorithm used is secure, meaning that it has both second pre-image resistance plus a more advanced form of second pre-image resistance. Collision resistance isn't even required! This is striking because we actually have quite a lot of confidence in our secure hash algorithms. Secure hash algorithms are among the easiest to create because all you need is a one-way function with some additional properties. And we've been studying hash functions very hard, for quite a long time, and understand them pretty well.

This means that one of our "new" post-quantum asymmetric algorithms is probably the very strongest we have, not only less likely to be broken than our other asymmetric algorithms, but less likely to be broken than our symmetric algorithms. If it were broken, it would be because someone broke SHA-256 (which, BTW, would break enormous swaths of modern cryptography; it's extremely hard to find a cryptographic security protocol that doesn't use SHA-256 somewhere), and unless that same research result somehow broke all secure hash functions, we could trivially repair SLH-DSA simply by swapping out the broken hash function for a secure one.

This is an entirely different model from the way we looked at cryptography early in my career. SLH-DSA doesn't have decades of use and attack research behind it. Oh, the basic concept of hash-based signatures dates back to the late 70s, but the crucial innovations that make SPHINCS and its descendants workable are barely a decade old! BUT we have a rigorous and carefully peer-reviewed security proof that demonstrates with absolute mathematical rigor that SLH-DSA is secure iff the hash function used in it is secure.

So... a relative newcomer is more trustworthy than the algorithms we've used for decades, precisely because we no longer rely on "hasn't been broken so far" as our only evidence of security.

As for AES, the subject of the discussion above, there is no security proof for AES. There's nothing to reduce it to. There are proofs that it is secure against specific attack techniques (linear cryptanalysis and differential cryptanalysis) that were able to defeat other block ciphers, but those proofs only prove security against those specific attacks, not other attacks that are not yet known. So for AES we really do rely on the fact that it has withstood 20+ years of focused cryptanalysis, and that no one has managed to find an attack that significantly weakens it. That could change at any time, with or without quantum computers.

SLH-DSA, however, is one that very well may be secure forever, against both classical and quantum attacks. The security proof doesn't even care about classical vs quantum, it just proves that any successful attack, no matter how it's performed, provides a way to break the underlying hash function. Therefore, if the hash function is secure, SLH-DSA is secure. It's an incredibly powerful proof, like many proofs by contradiction.

Reply "yes", then close and reopen this message to activate the link.

No matter how idiot-proof you make technology, God will always create a better idiot. That's why the right way to solve this problem is:

• Make it as hard as possible for users to accidentally do something that is irreversible, and as easy as possible to roll back even serious mistakes. This means, among other things, keeping more than just a single backup. (Apple, I'm talking about your borderline useless iCloud backups here when I say that.)
• Make SSNs easily changeable and less easily guessable.
• Make it technologically as hard as possible to send out messages in a way where the sender's identity can be forged to look like it comes from someone else.
• Aggressively prosecute phone companies who allow calls and text messages onto their network from fake phone numbers.
• Aggressively track down, prosecute, and very publicly make an example of every person who tries to pull one of these scams, along with the people who employ them, so that anybody considering pulling such a scam is aware of previous scammers who have ended up behind bars for thirty to life within six months of starting their scam.

But IMO, the most important one is that last one. We would be a lot better off if the right to a speedy trial were taken seriously. If a year or more passes between committing a crime and being prosecuted, the threat of prosecution ceases to be a meaningful deterrent to crime.

If I were in charge, there would be two nationwide statutes of limitations added that apply to all crimes:

• Charges must be filed within six months* of law enforcement having solid evidence showing who committed a crime. Just cause must be shown for any exceptions to this. If the law enforcement fails to show that they received significant supporting evidence that made it possible to bring their case during the six month period prior to filing charges, the charges are automatically dropped.
• Cases must begin within thirty days* of bringing charges. If the case cannot begin within 30 days, the charges are dropped.

* I'm willing to consider arguments that these numbers should be slightly higher, but not dramatically so.

If legitimate extenuating circumstances outside the control of prosecution warrant a delay (e.g. the defendant being impossible to locate or in another country), a judge could order the statute of limitations tolled. But otherwise, the only exceptions should be in situations where a mistrial or similar forces a new trial (which obviously starts more than 30 days after the initial charges are filed). And even for a retrial, there should be a hard limit of maybe 90 days from the end of the previous trial or thereabouts.

This would result in a very large number of cases not getting prosecuted, but by forcing the prosecution to triage cases and bring important cases quickly, it would ensure that fear of being brought to justice would be a real deterrent to committing crimes. Right now, it is not. Good people don't (intentionally) commit crimes, because they have morality and ethics. Bad people do, because they have neither. Almost nobody avoids doing crime merely out of fear of punishment, and that's a bad thing.

I would still consider them patent trolls at this point. Legitimate patent holders use patents immediately or hold them to use defensively. They do not sit on patents for an entire decade, waiting for the patented technology to be ingrained in the industry, and then use them to earn income. The patent having been created in-house rather than acquired doesn't change the fact that the behavior is fundamentally similar.

Dolby Atmos was 2012. Dolby Vision was 2014. How are they not basically a non-practicing entity at this point?

Yes, but using them offensively after sitting on them violates the doctrine of Laches. In effect, they sat on the patents so that people would end up depending on AV1, because if they sued too early, AOMedia would have designed around the patent, and they would get nothing. So they deliberately delayed action to cause prejudice to the defendant.

At this point, it would be entirely reasonable for a judge to declare that because they failed to act against AOMedia within the 6-year window prescribed by patent law, they lost their right to sue AOMedia for damages in creating the patented technology, and that patent exhaustion applies to all downstream users. And if that happens, I will laugh so hard.

Dolby is not a startup. It was founded in 1965.

Also, the doctrine of Laches says you cannot unreasonably delay filing a lawsuit. Waiting ten years from the first release of the specification is clearly unreasonable. Waiting eight years from the first finished implementation is clearly unreasonable.

The bigger problem for Dolby is that patent law won't let you recover damages at all for damages more than six years ago, and the standard has been available for eight. So unless somehow this is some wacky patent where Dolby claims that some use of an otherwise non-patent-protected codec is patented (which should almost certainly result in that patent getting overturned for obviousness), Dolby should be laughed out of court.

But I'm sure they're hoping that Snapchat caves and agrees to go back to a Dolby codec or pay them royalties rather than fight them in court. This is patent troll behavior. Dolby has effectively become a patent troll, IMO.

From a patent law point of view, it is illegal to create something that violates a patent, not just to use it. Patent law kicks in when you create, offer for sale, sell, import, or otherwise distribute a patented invention.

IMO, one of the biggest flaws in patent law is that it covers the use of inventions in all cases except for patent exhaustion (sale of an already-licensed product). With the exception of pure process patents, IMO, that should not be a violation, as a user has no realistic way of knowing that something they bought violates someone else's patent, and should not even need to worry about such nonsense.

This "feature" of patent law exists solely to give the patent holder more leverage to screw the company accused of violating the patent by holding their innocently infringing customers liable, causing irreparable reputational damage to both companies, irreparable harm to countless others, etc., and it should have been eliminated decades ago.

That said, having seen this behavior by Dolby, I hereby vow to never knowingly buy any product that they manufacture, nor support their products or technology, nor use it except in situations where the content creator or distributor leaves me no alternative. They've gone from being a legitimate technology company to a glorified patent troll. Instead of innovating and making the world better to enrich themselves, they are suing anybody and everybody and making the world worse to enrich themselves.

Moreover, absent gross incompetence by Dolby's legal counsel, it seems clear that Dolby flagrantly and willfully violated the doctrine of Laches to allow damages to accumulate for eight full years from the final release (and ten years from the first specification release), thus allowing AV1 to become the dominant codec so that they could then predatorily use their patents to squeeze money out of the industry. Their behavior is nothing short of unconscionable, and whether due to incompetence or malice, their legal counsel should be formally sanctioned for it.

Finally, if Dolby wins, it is paramount that the entire technology industry agree to never license *any* future Dolby technologies going forwards, because doing so will only encourage them to use the patent system to prevent free and open standards. The only way to prevent patent abuse is to stop feeding the companies that abuse patents.

It is my fundamental believe that data formats should not be allowed to be protected by copyright or patents under any circumstances, because doing so fundamentally violates the rights of the owners and creators of that content. It makes it so that users can potentially lose access to data that they created. And this is wholly unacceptable for the same reason that renting software is unacceptable.

In short, Dolby and its lawyers can go f**k themselves with a shovel.

If Putin had been around, he'd have been in the Epstein files, too. It's vanishingly-unlikely that any strongman like that wouldn't also be a sexual abuser. It's all part of the same disrespect for others.

Linux has a large number of highly-paid developers. If you look at the kernel, specifically, there are basically no unpaid volunteers contributing significantly to it, and there haven't been for a long time. The right way to understand kernel development is as a collaboration between a large number of corporations, each of whom contributes the paid work of skilled engineers and most of which also contribute cash to a foundation that employs the highly-paid engineers who coordinate all of the work (notably Linus, who makes a seven figure salary -- honestly, ought to be eight figures, but he's certainly not hurting).

If you look beyond the kernel to the other tools and desktop environments, the volunteer participation rises significantly, but there's also a lot of paid work.

You cannot possibly know that.

This seems plausible, but it implies that you cannot possibly know whether we're going to get AGI this century. If it's true, it means that we'll get AGI when we discover that as-yet-missing knowledge, and there's no way to predict when that might happen. It might have happened yesterday and we just don't know it yet. What is certain is that (a) the knowledge exists and (b) we're looking for it, really hard.

Y2K is a better example. Y2K could have been a castrophe. A decade before it happened we started working to fix all the systems. Hundreds of millions of dollars (maybe billions) were spent on Y2K remediation. Then Y2K came and... nothing much happened. Lots of people pointed and said "Haha! All that money spent fixing the problem was a waste!", but they were wrong. All of the money spent fixing the problem fixed the problem.

This is what we have to do with cryptography and quantum computers. If we wait until practical QCs arrive, we'll be in big trouble. Not only will it take years to replace all of the classical crypto infrastructure, so we need to do the work before the QCs arrive, there are some cases where there will be no possibility of remediation. There are two major categories:

1. Harvest-now-decrypt-later (HNDL). Any cases where data needs to be protected for decades is subject to attacks that involve storing the data now and holding it until quantum computers can decrypt it. We undoubtedly have a lot of data that is already stored for later decryption, but we want to avoid increasing that risk further.

2. Hardware trust. Secure hardware requires trusted firmware, which requires burning public keys and verification algorithms into ROM, and many of these devices will be in service for decades. So we need to be able to deliver secure firmware updates for decades, using keys and algorithms we burn into ROM now. This is particularly relevant to me, because I'm working on firmware for automobiles, which have a 5-year development window, and a ~20-year (or more!) service life. So I'm working on systems that need to be securable through 2051, and it's pretty important because these vehicles have some degree of self-driving capability. A vulnerability that enables mass compromise and takeover could be used to mount a horrific terror attack.

So, yes, this matters. Probably. It's possible that practical quantum computing will never emerge, but given the tremendous progress over the last few years, that seems like a bad bet. Google's 2029 target is wise.

These statements are too strong -- in both directions!

First, although Grover's algorithm is proven to be the optimal quantum algorithm for generalized search, you don't necessarily need a generalized search algorithm to break a block cipher. Block ciphers have internal structure that may be exploitable by quantum algorithms. Indeed researchers have made some progress in designing quantum algorithms to break Feistel network-based ciphers (which AES is not, but the previous standard cipher, DES, is). The result of that work, Simon's algorithm, is not a practical way to break Feistel network ciphers, but more research may improve it. So it's certainly possible that researchers could identify AES substructure that can be attacked with quantum computers, and this could result in a quantum algorithm that breaks AES. We have no hint of anything like that, and no one is really considering it to be likely, but "quantum resistant forever" is too strong.

Second, the claim that QCs get you a halving of the bits for block ciphers using Gover's algorithm is technically correct, but overstates the practical reality. Even assuming we had large, reliable and cheap quantum computers, the way Grover's algorithm would be applied to breaking AES requires 2^(n/2) sequential operations, each of which is a non-trivial quantum circuit. Moreover, other practical considerations, which are way too complicated to get into here -- in large part because I don't really understand them; I'm repeating what more-knowledgeable colleagues say here -- mean that AES-128 will probably retain ~90 bits of security, which means it will probably remain secure forever, assuming no better-than-Grover's algorithm exists.

No.

What was shown is that one random number generation algorithm was found to have been backdoored at the NSA's request. There is no evidence that this has ever happened with any of the other NIST-standardized algorithms, and it's also known that the NSA has stepped into strengthen other NIST algorithms (notably, DES -- though the the NSA both strengthened that by improving the S boxes and weakened it by asking for a smaller key size, though that wasn't a secret weakening; everyone understands the implications of smaller key sizes, and where necessary there are easy workarounds, hence triple-DES, which is still secure today).

All of this was in the past when the NSA held a considerable lead in cryptographic knowledge over academic cryptographers. It seems very unlikely that this is the case any more, and in fact at this point basically all novel cryptographic knowledge seems to be flowing in the other direction.

The only other case that people do wonder about a little bit is the choice of the elliptic curves used for ECDSA and ECDH. NIST never published any rationale for those curve choices, or any publicly-verifiable information about their choices. Most likely this is because there was no systematic choice process; they chose curves at random, verified their security properties and went with it, but it's possible that these specific curves have some internal structure that the NSA knows about and can exploit, but the rest of the world doesn't. After decades of fruitless scrutiny this isn't likely, but it's possible, which is why Daniel J. Bernstein ensured that his Curve25519 did have a clear, rational and publicly-verifiable construction process, and that's part of why many systems prefer Ed25519 and X25519 over ECDSA and ECDH (Curve25519 is also faster and has smaller public keys).

In the case of the PQC algorithms, all of them were created by academic cryptographers, and there are no suspicious modifications. So if the NSA has backdoored them they've done it really, really subtly. IMO, it's not a risk worth worrying about unless you're specifically defending against the NSA, and probably not even then. For commercial work, like I do, it's sufficient to trust that if the NSA is smart enough to have learned from the Dual_EC_DRBG debacle. In that case, not only did the backdoor eventually come out fully, along with evidence that the NSA had paid at least one company to use that algorithm, academic cryptographers suspected its existence even before the standard was published, and spoke publicly about it. That was probably what motivated the NSA to pay for its use, since it was under a cloud of suspicion from the beginning. So it was a very foolish move by the NSA, driven by extreme and obviously unjustified overconfidence in their lead in cryptographic knowledge.

This isn't true.

Yes, one of the finalists was broken, utterly. There are no successful attacks against ML-DSA, ML-KEM or SLH-DSA, and they have good security proofs. Note that "successful attack" and "security proof" both have different meanings to cryptographers. A successful attack is one that reduces the security even a little from what it theoretically should be, even if the reduction still leaves the algorithm completely unbreakable in practice. A security proof is a proof that the construction is secure if the underlying primitives satisfy security assumptions. There is no cryptographic algorithm in existence that has a security proof that a mathematician would consider to be a proof; we just don't know how to do that. In the case of ML-DSA and ML-KEM, the underlying assumptions are about the hardness of the underlying mathematical problems, Module-LWE and Module-SIS. In the case of SLH-DSA the underlying assumptions are about the security of hash algorithms.

Module-LWE and Module-SIS are fairly new problems, and have only been studied for a little over a decade. The whole field of mathematics they're based on is less than 30 years old, so it's more likely that some mathematical breakthrough will destroy their security than it is that some breakthrough will wipe out ECC, which has been studied for about 50 years, and which builds on 150 years of algebraic geometry. Still, a mathematical breakthrough could destroy ECC or RSA, too.

In contrast SLH-DSA is rock solid, from a security perspective. We've been studying hash functions for a long time, and, really, our entire cryptographic security infrastructure is based on the assumption that our hash functions are good. If that turns out not to be the case, then quantum computers will be the least of our problems because to a first approximation every cryptographic protocol in existence relies on secure hashing. It's far more likely that ECC or RSA will be broken than that SLH-DSA will be broken. Unfortunately, SLH-DSA is orders of magnitude slower than what we're used to.

It's worth noting that SIKE (the NIST PQC finalist that was broken) also had a security proof. The problem was that the proof showed that SIKE was secure if the supersingular isogeny problem was hard -- but what SIKE actually used wasn't that problem, exactly. SIKE required additional data to be published, and that additional information reduced the hardness of the problem. This is why the break was so total, and was found immediately when researchers began scrutinizing SIKE. All it took was the observation that SIKE relied on a less-hard problem, then a mathematical solution to the less-hard problem.

NIST chose these three algorithms for good reasons. ML-KEM and ML-DSA have larger keys than we're used to with RSA and especially ECC, but they're not that much larger, not so large that they simply can't be used in existing protocols. And they're fast, with performance on par with what we're used to. So they are feasible drop-in replacements in most cases.

SLH-DSA is not a drop-in replacement. The keys are very small (on par with ECC, a bit smaller, even), but the signatures it produces are enormous: the smallest is 8k, the biggest is 50k (depending on parameter choices). Also, signing is 50-2000 times slower than EC-DSA (depending on parameter choices) and verification is 10-30 times slower.

So, what NIST did was choose a pair of quite-usable and probably-secure algorithms (ML-KEM and ML-DSA) that cover all cryptographic needs and are very close to being drop-in replacements, plus a less-usable but absolutely-secure algorithm as a backstop. I don't know that they ever explicitly stated the strategy they were suggesting, but it's obvious: Use ML-KEM and ML-DSA as your everyday algorithms for operational security and for firmware signing, but for firmware signing specifically, burn an SLH-DSA public key into your devices that you can use to verify new firmware and new public keys that use new algorithms in the event the ML- algorithms are ever broken.

I don't think so, and neither does Google -- which employs a lot of professional academic cryptographers (which I'm not).

Whether you should move to these algorithms depends on what you're doing, and what your service lifetimes are. If the data you're encrypting or signing only needs to be secure for a decade, don't bother. Existing ECC-based constructions will be fine.

If the data needs to be secure for more than that, if you're really concerned about harvest-now-decrypt-later attacks that could be performed 20-30 years from now, you should move to ML-KEM, and do it soon. There actually isn't that much data that really needs to be secure for that long... but if yours is in that category it's more likely that it will still be secure in 2050 if it's encrypted with ML-KEM/AES than if it's encrypted with ECDH/AES. Both options are a gamble, of course. ML-KEM is more likely to fall to a cryptographic attack than ECDH, but ECDH is at risk from quantum computing.

Firmware signing is a very interesting case. Firmware security is foundational to system security. Phones today are expected to have an ~8-year lifespan, so a phone launched in 2029 needs to remain secure until 2037... and that is getting into the range where there's a non-trivial probability that quantum computers will be large enough, reliable enough and cheap enough to be a threat. That probability is only in the 1-5% range (IMO), but in the cryptographic security world 1-5% is utterly unacceptable. I work on automotive firmware these days (I left Google six months ago) and we have ~5 year development timelines, followed by 20-year operational timelines, so a project we start today needs to be secure until 2051. The probability of large, reliable, cheap quantum computers by 2050 approaches 100%.

On the other hand, can your hardware really accept a ~20X longer firmware verification time from using SLH-DSA? That's not a question with a universal answer. Some contexts can, some can't. ML-DSA is more computationally-practical, but there's a risk that it will be broken. I think the clearly-appropriate strategy for now is: Ship your hardware with ML-DSA verified firmware, but also burn an SLH-DSA public key into the ROM (or OTP fuses) and arrange things so you can use that SLH-DSA public key to verify and install a new firmware verification scheme in the future, should ML-DSA be compromised. Or, alternatively, stick with EC-DSA or Ed25519 for now, but include that same SLH-DSA-based infrastructure for migrating to something else. If your hardware lifetime is long enough, you almost certainly will have to actually use that to migrate to some PQC algorithm. If feasible, it would be better to start with ML-DSA now.