An aspect I haven&#x27;t seen discussed yet:<p>Many people seem to presume that the custom value of Q used by Juniper was done so that either they or some confederate could passively decrypt communications.  The existence of a pre-intrustion bug that leaked the required bytes to allow this would seem to point in this direction as well.<p>But if someone was already making use of this backdoor, wouldn&#x27;t they have quickly noticed if they lost access?   And if this someone was Juniper (or someone allied with them) wouldn&#x27;t they have been able to (perhaps silently) report and revert the change to regain access?  It would seem that no one who knew the secret value objected to the change.<p>And now Juniper is fixing the problem by reverting to the original non-standard value, avoiding the presumed NSA-compromised recommended value.   But what&#x27;s special about that original value that they go out of their way to return to it?  If their goal was truly security, why not hash something &quot;provably&quot; secure, as suggested in the article?<p>What&#x27;s an interpretation of events where all these things make sense?   The one that makes the most sense to me is to assume that the entity that made the &quot;unsolicited&quot; change to Q was the same as the one who knew the secret of the original, and they change was made because they wanted to restrict someone else&#x27;s access.   But this doesn&#x27;t fit with the change back to the original, rather than to a new value.