But you make it sound like these people were rank amateurs. They literally wrote the paper describing this optimization. Let's make it clear that crypto is hard, even for people who know what they're doing. https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/816.pdf
Your language may be "safe" and you may pass test vectors but reimplementing crypto is *still* a bad idea.https://twitter.com/daniel_bilar/status/946034680062730240 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
To be fair, asm isn't safe. They wrote sketchy asm to go with a semi-safe language.
-
But the bug is a logic bug that a "safe" language wouldn't help with.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The “safe” language where the bug was is x86-64 assembly.
-
My point is that a language being "safe" (which is often used as an excuse to reinvent all the wheels in a given language) is a bad excuse when crypto mistakes (like this one) will happen in any language (the bug was a logic bug).
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Go is not a safe language anyway. Really, it isn't.
-
curious how you mean – I assume more than memory safety?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.