Natanael

joined 1 year ago
[–] Natanael 1 points 3 weeks ago

What part of the campaign was worse

Please specify

[–] Natanael 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Did you not pay attention to how Kamala was called a liar by media for saying Trump would send the military against cities?

... And then he did?

Did you not pay attention to how he claimed credit for Covid funds that Democrats established? Blaming Democrats for Trump judges' decisions? Setting up Afghanistan so the exit would happen at the start of Biden's turn to hurt his approval when it predictably turns to chaos? How Biden's age was somehow a problem but Trump's never was?

Media was hysterical about how democrats would make everything worse somehow but never explaining it, then repeating Trump's claims that he's deliver the best economy ever and all kinds of bullshit like it.

And with all that Trump still didn't even get 50%!

[–] Natanael 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Real-time in computing usually either means a real-time OS with guaranteed low latency response (typically for stuff like microcontrollers regulating machines) or streaming live data (low latency delivery of the most recent value)

This sounds like the latter, and a typical SQL database don't guarantee real-time updates (you can have "atomic writes" to prevent inconsistency but usually this would make it slower) but some databases like this one are designed to ensure you can read out updated correct and consistent values much faster. Also with standard databases you usually make scheduled individual requests, but a real-time database could often send a stream of updated values to a "subscribing" program

[–] Natanael 1 points 3 weeks ago

The question is if it wins then more support than they lose.

[–] Natanael 4 points 3 weeks ago

The "trick" is conservatives want to preserve a past that didn't exist, they've been told fairytales

[–] Natanael 6 points 3 weeks ago

They're targeting anybody who challenges their authority, starting with people who look different (foreigners first)

[–] Natanael 3 points 4 weeks ago

A gov accounts mute / block list, for example

[–] Natanael 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, but without federation

[–] Natanael 32 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

The verification doesn't work like on Twitter, it's just proving the identity, it's not some flag of prominence.

There's even multiple organizations who can issue verifications on bluesky, for example newspapers can act as verifiers of their own staff;

https://bsky.social/about/blog/04-21-2025-verification

[–] Natanael 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It's actually kinda easy. Neural networks are just weirder than usual logic gate circuits. You can program them just the same and insert explicit controlled logic and deterministic behavior. To somebody who don't know the details of LLM training, they wouldn't be able to tell much of a difference. It will be packaged as a bundle of node weights and work with the same interfaces and all.

The reason that doesn't work well if you try to insert strict logic into a traditional LLM despite the node properties being well known is because of how intricately interwoven and mutually dependent all the different parts of the network is (that's why it's a LARGE language model). You can't just arbitrarily edit anything or insert more nodes or replace logic, you don't know what you might break. It's easier to place inserted logic outside of the LLM network and train the model to interact with it ("tool use").

[–] Natanael 2 points 4 weeks ago

If you're in the US, the medical bills might cost you more than both

[–] Natanael 11 points 4 weeks ago

But then the bear would still have to be afraid of honeypots

1
The cryptography behind passkeys (blog.trailofbits.com)
submitted 9 months ago by Natanael to c/crypto
 

From here;

https://chaos.social/@dbrgn/114386333844571387

dbrgn@chaos.social - Here are a few interesting details about the maximally privacy-friendly protocol design:

  • Everything related to synchronization between devices is completely end-to-end encrypted
  • Message recipients do not know from which device a message was sent
  • The Mediator Server of a device group does not know the corresponding Threema ID
  • The Chat Server only sees the IP address of the Mediator Server, but not the IP address of the end devices
1
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
 

Announcement from here;

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/_HH9A70BwJ6vgEfT2iSTvCQFhZE/

Hi folks,

We recently published an initial specification for a hybrid, post-quantum, augmented PAKE protocol, called CPaceOQUAKE+, located here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vos-cfrg-pqpake/

The motivation for this protocol can be roughly summarized as follows:

  • Post-quantum: None of the existing PAKE specifications are post-quantum. Rather than incrementally improve on PAKEs that are secure against standard adversaries, we felt it important to shift focus to post-quantum adversaries.
  • Augmented: Many PAKE deployments use augmented PAKEs (SRP and SPAKE2+, for example). A drop-in replacement for these use cases was therefore important.
  • Hybrid: CPaceOQUAKE+ is built on CPace and OQUAKE (which is specified in the document and based on the NoIC protocol in [1], and then composed with CPace using a variant of the combiner analyzed in [3]) as well as other standard building blocks (like ML-KEM). While CPace is well-understood, OQUAKE and the combiner itself are more new and thus warrant additional caution (from an implementation and analysis perspective). By making the primary protocol CPaceOQUAKE+ hybrid, we hedge against issues in the component pieces used in its construction and the maturity of their implementation(s).

This specification emerged from a number of relevant papers on the topic, including [1,2,3,4,5]. We are finishing security analysis of this protocol (and the core constituent parts) and hope to publish that soon.

We expect the shape and contents of this draft to change over time, especially as this community commences work on PQ PAKEs. We hope that by releasing this initial version we can get the conversation started on this important topic. IETF 123 is a little far out, but if folks would find it interesting, perhaps we can have an interim meeting of sorts to discuss PQ PAKEs and these specifications in the interim.

Best, Chris, on behalf of the editors

[1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/231
[2] https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/1621
[3] https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/1630
[4] https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/1400
[5] https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/7qm0220s

 

See also discussion here; https://reddit.com/comments/1jv572r

4
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
 

Cryptology ePrint Archive
Paper 2025/585
Adaptively-Secure Big-Key Identity-Based Encryption
Jeffrey Champion, The University of Texas at Austin
Brent Waters, The University of Texas at Austin, NTT Research
David J. Wu, The University of Texas at Austin

Abstract
Key-exfiltration attacks on cryptographic keys are a significant threat to computer security. One proposed defense against such attacks is big-key cryptography which seeks to make cryptographic secrets so large that it is infeasible for an adversary to exfiltrate the key (without being detected). However, this also introduces an inconvenience to the user who must now store the large key on all of their different devices. The work of Döttling, Garg, Sekar and Wang (TCC 2022) introduces an elegant solution to this problem in the form of big-key identity-based encryption (IBE). Here, there is a large master secret key, but very short identity keys. The user can now store the large master secret key as her long-term key, and can provision each of her devices with short ephemeral identity keys (say, corresponding to the current date). In this way, the long-term secret key is protected by conventional big-key cryptography, while the user only needs to distribute short ephemeral keys to their different devices. Döttling et al. introduce and construct big-key IBE from standard pairing-based assumptions. However, their scheme only satisfies selective security where the adversary has to declare its challenge set of identities at the beginning of the security game. The more natural notion of security is adaptive security where the user can adaptively choose which identities it wants to challenge after seeing the public parameters (and part of the master secret key).

In this work, we give the first adaptively-secure construction of big-key IBE from standard cryptographic assumptions. Our first construction relies on indistinguishability obfuscation (and one-way functions), while our second construction relies on witness encryption for NP together with standard pairing-based assumptions (i.e., the SXDH assumption). To prove adaptive security, we show how to implement the classic dual-system methodology with indistinguishability obfuscation as well as witness encryption.

 

Abstract;

In this paper, we present the first practical algorithm to compute an effective group action of the class group of any imaginary quadratic order O on a set of supersingular elliptic curves primitively oriented by O. Effective means that we can act with any element of the class group directly, and are not restricted to acting by products of ideals of small norm, as for instance in CSIDH. Such restricted effective group actions often hamper cryptographic constructions, e.g. in signature or MPC protocols.

Our algorithm is a refinement of the Clapoti approach by Page and Robert, and uses 4-dimensional isogenies. As such, it runs in polynomial time, does not require the computation of the structure of the class group, nor expensive lattice reductions, and our refinements allows it to be instantiated with the orientation given by the Frobenius endomorphism. This makes the algorithm practical even at security levels as high as CSIDH-4096. Our implementation in SageMath takes 1.5s to compute a group action at the CSIDH-512 security level, 21s at CSIDH-2048 level and around 2 minutes at the CSIDH-4096 level. This marks the first instantiation of an effective cryptographic group action at such high security levels. For comparison, the recent KLaPoTi approach requires around 200s at the CSIDH-512 level in SageMath and 2.5s in Rust.

See also; https://bsky.app/profile/andreavbasso.bsky.social/post/3ljkh4wmnqk2c

view more: ‹ prev next ›