5 ms·

TFA says "PM is an attack ... and this is a consensus of the IETF". On the other hand, IETF continues to employ NSA employees (like Kevin Igoe, a co-chair of Cr

TFA says "PM is an attack ... and this is a consensus of the IETF". On the other hand, IETF continues to employ NSA employees (like Kevin Igoe, a co-chair of Crypto Research Group under IETF[1] ). So: is it a consensus or not? Does Mr. Igoe consider PM an "attack", even though his own employer does it? I'm having trouble reconciling the two. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.irtf.cfrg/2337 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.irtf.cfrg/2337

bcoates 12y ago
> I'm having trouble reconciling the two. Why? It's extremely common for industry/standardization groups like the IETF to come to conclusions that are contrary to the position of one of its members, and it usually doesn't result in said member being expelled or falling on their sword.
- eternalseven 12y ago
  Tell that to that Sterling guy who owns the Clippers. Actually I agree with your statement.
jnbiche 12y ago
I thought he explained pretty clearly that this is not a unanimous opinion of the IETF, and that there are very vocal groups that oppose it. Firing the chair of a IETF crypto research group would have only given those groups more ammunition, and probably would have prevented this RFC from ever being published. That said, the very fact that the RFC was published sends a very strong message to those contingents about the IETF's priorities, and I for one am very happy to hear it.
tptacek 12y ago
The IETF considered replacing Igoe. No consensus was reached. People with lots of IETF institutional credibility (ie: that had been instrumental in previous standardization efforts, ones in which no tampering concerns were entertained by anyone) strongly disagreed with his ouster. Also, from a political perspective, the effort to replace Igoe was hamstrung by the lack of anyone in the universe raising their hand and saying "I'm a respected cryptographer AND I want to punch myself in the face continuously for several years by chairing CFRG". The less reverence the Internet has for the cryptographic wisdom of the IETF, the better off I think we all are.
- jchrisa 12y ago
  What do you think about IETF-JOSE? I've been using it as sort of a cookbook for signing and encryption. They even have a cookbook: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-cookbook/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-cookbook/
  - tptacek 12y ago
    JOSE includes JSON canonicalization, which scares the crap out of me. If I had the choice, I'd treat JSON as binary --- a whitespace change would, for a signed file, break the signature. JOSE also includes RSA PKCS1v1.5 signatures, which are deprecated (you should use RSA-PSS, which JOSE also documents). It includes naive nondeterministic DSA, which should be deprecated in favor of deterministic DSA or something like Ed25519. It doesn't include details you actually want about curve selection. (Also, P-521?!) It includes encryption under RSA PKCS1v1.5 (encryption with v1.5 is even worse than signing under it) and AES-CBC, which is disfavored by cryptographers. (My understanding of JOSE is cursory, at best, so I wouldn't be surprised to be corrected on any of these).
seacious 12y ago
Most blackhats will cheerfully acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong. They just think it isn't very wrong. Everyone does things they know to be wrong. Even very wrong. Update: Formatting. (can't we get a preview, please?)

bcoates 12y ago

> I'm having trouble reconciling the two. Why? It's extremely common for industry/standardization groups like the IETF to come to conclusions that are contrary to the position of one of its members, and it usually doesn't result in said member being expelled or falling on their sword.

eternalseven 12y ago
Tell that to that Sterling guy who owns the Clippers. Actually I agree with your statement.

jnbiche 12y ago

I thought he explained pretty clearly that this is not a unanimous opinion of the IETF, and that there are very vocal groups that oppose it. Firing the chair of a IETF crypto research group would have only given those groups more ammunition, and probably would have prevented this RFC from ever being published. That said, the very fact that the RFC was published sends a very strong message to those contingents about the IETF's priorities, and I for one am very happy to hear it.

tptacek 12y ago

The IETF considered replacing Igoe. No consensus was reached. People with lots of IETF institutional credibility (ie: that had been instrumental in previous standardization efforts, ones in which no tampering concerns were entertained by anyone) strongly disagreed with his ouster. Also, from a political perspective, the effort to replace Igoe was hamstrung by the lack of anyone in the universe raising their hand and saying "I'm a respected cryptographer AND I want to punch myself in the face continuously for several years by chairing CFRG". The less reverence the Internet has for the cryptographic wisdom of the IETF, the better off I think we all are.

jchrisa 12y ago
What do you think about IETF-JOSE? I've been using it as sort of a cookbook for signing and encryption. They even have a cookbook: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-cookbook/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-cookbook/
- tptacek 12y ago
  JOSE includes JSON canonicalization, which scares the crap out of me. If I had the choice, I'd treat JSON as binary --- a whitespace change would, for a signed file, break the signature. JOSE also includes RSA PKCS1v1.5 signatures, which are deprecated (you should use RSA-PSS, which JOSE also documents). It includes naive nondeterministic DSA, which should be deprecated in favor of deterministic DSA or something like Ed25519. It doesn't include details you actually want about curve selection. (Also, P-521?!) It includes encryption under RSA PKCS1v1.5 (encryption with v1.5 is even worse than signing under it) and AES-CBC, which is disfavored by cryptographers. (My understanding of JOSE is cursory, at best, so I wouldn't be surprised to be corrected on any of these).

seacious 12y ago

Most blackhats will cheerfully acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong. They just think it isn't very wrong. Everyone does things they know to be wrong. Even very wrong. Update: Formatting. (can't we get a preview, please?)