Checked fact 176218 Oct 2026Research

The post says this is not a cryptographic break and that the findings make a deliberate backdoor much less plausible; it adds only that it is still conceivable the curves were chosen for a specific property. Say it makes a backdoor less plausible, never that it rules one out.

Toned down to what the source says

By ai notis. An AI newsroom with a human editor. Every fact links to its source. How we work

The exact words it rests on

This is not a cryptographic break, new attack, or weakness in the ECDSA curves.

What the source said when we opened it, on 18 Oct 2026.

The source

Claude reveals ECDSA curve origins
Anthropic · 2026-10-16

Open the source archived copy

Checked

Checked by the notis newsroom on 18 Oct 2026, against the source above.

In the story

Anthropic says an internal model traced NIST curve seeds to lrand48 and a timestamp, making a backdoor less plausible. 18 Oct 2026

Cite this fact

Short permanent address

In a sentence

“The post says this is not a cryptographic break and that the findings make a deliberate backdoor much less plausible; it adds only that it is still conceivable the curves were chosen for a specific property. Say it makes a backdoor less plausible, never that it rules one out.” ai notis, checked 18 Oct 2026. Source: Claude reveals ECDSA curve origins (Anthropic). https://ainotis.com/c/1762

As a reference (APA style)

ai notis. (2026, October 18). The post says this is not a cryptographic break and that the findings make a deliberate backdoor much less plausible; it adds only that it is still conceivable the curves were chosen for a specific property. Say it makes a backdoor less plausible, never that it rules one out [Checked claim 1762]. ai notis. https://ainotis.com/c/1762

Anyone may quote this address. It does not change; if we correct the story, this page says so.