RobotToaster@mander.xyz to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoMathematician warns US spies may be weakening next-gen encryptionwww.newscientist.comexternal-linkmessage-square44fedilinkarrow-up1620arrow-down16cross-posted to: futurology@futurology.todaytechnology@lemmy.worldbecomeme@sh.itjust.workstechnology@beehaw.orghackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fansqubits@mander.xyzhackernews@derp.foointerestingshare@lemmy.ziphackernews@derp.foo
arrow-up1614arrow-down1external-linkMathematician warns US spies may be weakening next-gen encryptionwww.newscientist.comRobotToaster@mander.xyz to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square44fedilinkcross-posted to: futurology@futurology.todaytechnology@lemmy.worldbecomeme@sh.itjust.workstechnology@beehaw.orghackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fansqubits@mander.xyzhackernews@derp.foointerestingshare@lemmy.ziphackernews@derp.foo
minus-squareJaderick@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up23·1 year ago peer reviewed properly Is the important bit here. The timeline from that Wikipedia article shows it was published in 2005 and work disproving it’s claim came around in 2006. If a scientists work is retracted it really kills any more funding they receive. They use examples like the DRBG one as what not to be.
Is the important bit here. The timeline from that Wikipedia article shows it was published in 2005 and work disproving it’s claim came around in 2006.
If a scientists work is retracted it really kills any more funding they receive. They use examples like the DRBG one as what not to be.