I think there is an argument to be made that the ongoing requirement for &quot;flexible&quot; crypto represents a backdoor. We know enough to say it&#x27;ll never be right. Even in the 90s, when we didn&#x27;t perhaps have hard earned experience, I think we knew enough to say it wasn&#x27;t proven secure, and therefore the safe choice would be less flexible.<p>No, it&#x27;s not specifying a particular backdoor, but if you make something hard enough you can be assured one will develop organically. And even if it&#x27;s not deliberate malfeasance, can we at least call it callous negligence?