I read eprint 2026/1035, so you wouldn't have too. Independent of my thoughts about standardizing Rijndael-256, I believe that this paper should be rejected from any venue for being AI slop (and a bad one at that).
1. It is a badly written SoK. Many recent results are missing >>
@Khovr This is a more delicate discussion than twitter allows. But when an LLM does a "research" can you attribute the previous research it is based on? LLMs do not know (and it seems unlikely they can really explain) what they are basing their facts upon.
So, my paper is going >>>
Given that everybody are now vibe coding, I believe that attacks a-la the ones reported in Ken Thompson's seminal "Reflections on Trusting Trust" will become easier to execute and harder to detect.
@Khovr AI should be allowed for "style" touches. Fixing your English because it is not your native language. Making paragraphs clearer.
They should never ever be allowed in papers (even SoK) for anything above that.
@pratiks_crypto The problem:
They wasted 10 minutes creating a paper that it would take me two full days to dismantle. While these two days are community work and service for the better good, I also have to do other things to write something which is sufficiently accessible and clear.
Now, if you want to argue for Rijndael-256 being standardized - be my guest (I have my views, and I've expressed them in some forums).
But please be accurate in your "security" analysis, and don't AI slop arguments that most people can't tell if they are true or not.