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 …
-
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).
-
-
Then say “don’t reinvent crypto”, which anyone would agree with. Don’t use Go’s visibility for a cheap shot and blabber about a safe language when the carry error was caused by the add in assembly.
-
It's a cultural problem. Go reinvents *everything*. And then it winds up reinventing crypto.
End of conversation
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.