[HansHarmannij]

A few years back I had the chance to talk with Joan Daemen after he gave a presentation about keccak, which hadn't won the competition yet. This was way before Snowden. He was very sceptical about the use of his work. He thought it was fun doing it, but it didn't have any use, since everything has backdoors anyway. That's what he said. Sounded a bit paranoid to me back then, but now it sounds a lot more plausible.

[kzrdude]

It seems to be the standard for cryptographers to never endorse or recommend any particular solution, because they know that it will eventually have holes.

It's probably just that.

[rectangletangle]

It's similar to how scientists won't advocate their findings as anything more than probable. Seeing as for something to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Therefor there's always the possibility of unknown errors in their methodology negating their findings.