this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
2 points (100.0% liked)
Cryptography @ Infosec.pub
652 readers
2 users here now
Questions, answers, discussions, and literature on the theory and practice of cryptography
Rules (longer version here)
- Stick to cryptography / infosec
- Be a good netizen - be kind, act in good faith, maintain high quality, don't mislead
- Link directly to original sources
- Don't use us to cheat on challenges or tests!
- Crypto review requests must show the algorithm
- CTF / challenges and puzzles must use modern crypto
- Avoid making duplicate posts
- All use of AI / LLM and their prompts MUST be disclosed in your submissions and comments
##Related resources;
- Reddit cryptography forums 1 & 2; /r/crypto /r/cryptography
- Cryptology ePrint archive
- Discussion site for ePrint papers
- Libera Chat's IRC:s #crypto - (IRC protocol URL)
- Metzdowd cryptography mailing list
- Randombit cryptography mailing list
- StackExchange cryptography community
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The value in cryptographic agility comes entirely from the ability to deprecate insecure algorithms, it does not come from the ability to add new algorithms because we can always do that with a version bump anyway.
Also, on the note of interfaces, KEM constructions can not be swapped in for most generic ECC key exchange functions due to different requirements on message round-trips.
I recognize the term "cryptographic alacrity" to specifically include the deprecation of unsafe cryptography, to distinguish from "agility" that could may or may not deprecate old cryptography, thus allowing for fallback attacks to truly ancient cryptography. So yes, I think we're on the same page as to where the utility lays.