Presumably you are talking about the discussion five years ago about a potential backdoor in a psuedo-random number generator that no was was going to use [0], which has recently made the rounds again on HN.
If that’s the case, don’t worry. The same guy said this SHA-3 hash function is a good one [1].
More info on the construct here: http://keccak.noekeon.org/
I hope this isn’t the one with the creepy-sounding NSA backdoor?
Presumably you are talking about the discussion five years ago about a potential backdoor in a psuedo-random number generator that no was was going to use [0], which has recently made the rounds again on HN.
If that’s the case, don’t worry. The same guy said this SHA-3 hash function is a good one [1].
[0] https://www.schneier.com/essay-198.html
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/keccak_is_sha-3.html