Years ago, when I did hardware and metrology, I developed a lot of respect for what was then the National Bureau of Standards, now NIST. NIST still has an important role in much that I do, but these days you have to look at some of their work with a careful eye, always wondering if you are paranoid enough.
I am referring, of course, to the famous 'back-door' associated with SP800-90revised_March2007.pdf, which is related to random number generation. Which is, of course, a vital component in all cryptosystems.
I completely FUBARed this. I have a lot of bookmarks related to that 2006 issue, and some notes related to whether this might be a 'double-think' due to NSA influence, vis-a-vis RSA/DSA versus elliptic curves, but I don't have a copy of SP800-90revised_March2007.pdf. There is no copy in the archives, so all I could do is request one via email.
I will update this post if and when I get any response, with a SHA of what I receive. Because I no longer trust NIST.
Questions related to NSA influence of standards date back to DES. The consensus of the DES discussions was that there was no undue influence. Fine. That is something that historians of crypto can argue about--no sane architect currently specifies DES or 3DES in 2013.
SP800-90revised_March2007.pdf is more recent, and I should have kept better track of this stuff. FUBAR. Under my federal/nist/sp800 directory, there is no 'historic' directory, and there should be. There are groups of files with the same dates, due to my trusting NIST, and not practicing careful backup procedures on a workstation. This is a result of just dragging files around as I've upgraded the system over the years, etc.
I should have known better than to trust NIST due to monthly exposure; they publish a monthly bulletin which has changed file-naming conventions several times, sometimes carried no title at all, etc. And some of the 'advice' is about as useful as what my bank provides in their annual CYA surface-mail inclusion.
This is not the hallmark of a standards organization I should have trusted. So now I have to control file dates, take cryptographic hashes, etc. I also have to write and maintain software to do it all, because it is too much to keep up with manually, on a daily basis. Because I can no longer trust an organ of my own government. Hence the rageface reference.
This has already caused huge economic repercussions in that several large-scale organizations are now unwilling to host data, or allow data to pass through (that will be tough, given that routing is a complex dynamic system), the United States. But it also has repercussions below the level of multinational corporations. Due to this, and similar issues, my overhead increased. So did the fees I have to charge, and that doesn't make things easier on anyone.
Thanks, NSA, but I am more interested in why no charges have been brought against General Keith B. Alexander (NSA is a military organization, and they have different goals), than, say
National Cryptologic Museum Offers Music and Movie in 20th Anniversary Festivities
though that definitely has its place.
Update September 11, 2013
I plowed through a lot of backups looking for this file, and came up dry.
The sleepless folk at archive.org (just coming back online after an extended periodic maintenance evolution) had the file. No, there is no evidence here for conspiracy theorists to get even crazier over. They were just doing database maintenance, and ran into some problems. These things happen.
But let us put any potential crazies to rest, as best we can. I obtained a copy from http://web.archive.org/web/20070714022758/http://www.csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-90/SP800-90revised_March2007.pdf. While it is possible to forge PDF documents, it would be stupid to do so in a manner that is easily detected, and there are bound to be many copies of this PDF floating around. Possibly some would generate a different hash (it only takes a single flipped bit), but the differences would be easily discovered. The NSA is not collectively stupid, and this would not happen. So here is a hash of the file I obtained from archive.org.
$ sha256sum SP800-90revised_March2007.pdf
A quick note on backups. I looked at media dating back to 1999, though I didn't know it as I was swapping CDs (yes, CDs). The earliest media were apparently randomly burned from a workstation whenever I got sufficiently paranoid about losing work. They were all Imation CD-R. As much as fourteen years old, and all disks were still readable. Anecdotal, and I wouldn't dream of doing backups as I did then. Or I would never have had to hunt for the file. But I was impressed with Imation media of the period.