It's very simple.

ECC is well understood and has not been broken over many years.

ML-KEM is new, and hasn't had the same scrutiny as ECC. It's possible that the NSA already knows how to break this, and has chosen not to tell us, and NIST plays the useful idiot.

NIST has played the useful idiot before, when it promoted Dual_EC_DRBG, and the US government paid RSA to make it the default CSPRNG in their crypto libraries for everyone else... but eventually word got out that it's almost certainly an NSA NOBUS special, and everyone started disabling it.

Knowing all that, and planning for a future where quantum computers might defeat ECC -- it's not defeated yet, and nobody knows when in the future that might happen... would you choose:

Option A): encrypt key exchange with ECC and the new unproven algorithm

Option B): throw out ECC and just use the new unproven algorithm

NIST tells you option B is for the best. NIST told you to use Dual_EC_DRBG. W3C adopted EME at the behest of Microsoft, Google and Netflix. Microsoft told you OOXML is a valid international standard you should use instead of OpenDocument (and it just so happens that only one piece of software, made by Microsoft, correctly reads and writes OOXML). So it goes on. Standards organisations are very easily corruptable when its members are allowed to have conflicts of interest and politick and rules-lawyer the organisation into adopting their pet standards.

▲

jcranmer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Standards organisations are very easily corruptable when its members are allowed to have conflicts of interest and politick and rules-lawyer the organisation into adopting their pet standards.

FWIW, in my experience on standardization committees, the worst example I've seen of rules-lawyering to drive standards changes is... what DJB's doing right now. There's a couple of other egregious examples I can think of, where people advocating against controversial features go in full rules-lawyer mode to (unsuccessfully) get the feature pulled. I've never actually seen any controversial feature make it into a standard because of rules-lawyering.

	▲	dataflow an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What exactly are you calling "rules-lawyering"? Is citing rules and pointing out their blatant violation "rules-lawyering"? If so, can you explain why it is better to avoid this, and what should be done instead? As an outsider I'd understand it differently: reading rules and pointing out their lack of violation (perhaps in letter), when people feel like you violated it (perhaps in spirit), is what would be rules-layering. You're agreeing on what the written rules are, but interpreting actions as following vs. violating them. That's quite different from an accusation of rules violation followed by silence or distortions or outright lies. If someone is pointing out that you're violating the rules and you're lying or staying silent or distorting the facts, you simply don't get to dismiss or smear them with a label like "rules-lawyer". For rules to be followed, people have to be able to enforce them. Otherwise it's just theater.

▲

glenstein 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Thank you, that seems to be the whole ball game for me right there. I understood the sarcastic tone as kind of exasperation, but it means something in the context of an extremely concerning attempt to ram through a questionable algorithm that is not well understood and risks a version of an NSA backdoor, and the only real protection would be integrity of standards adoptions processes like this one. You've really got to stick with the substance over the tone to be able to follow the ball here. Everyone was losing their minds over GDPR introducing a potential back door to encrypted chat apps that security agencies could access. This goes to the exact same category of concern, and as you note it has precedent!

So yeah, NSA potentially sneaking a backdoor into an approved standard is pretty outrageous, and worth objecting to in strongest terms, and when that risk is present it should be subjected to the highest conceiveable standard of scrutiny.

In fact, I found this to be the strongest point in the article - there's any number of alternatives that might (1) prove easier to implement, (2) prove more resilient to future attacks (3) turn out to be the most efficient.

Just because you want to do something in the future doesn't mean it needs to be ML-KEM specifically, and the idea of throwing out ECC is almost completely inexplicable unless you're the NSA and you can't break it and you're trying to propose a new standard that doesn't include it.

How is that not a hair on fire level concern?