IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] malicious DH base points [was Re: should the CFRG really strive for consensus?]

Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net> Thu, 01 January 2015 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <calestyo@scientia.net>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7551A0161 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:14:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IPcETpCMSQs3 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw01.dd24.net (mailgw01.dd24.net [193.46.215.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C1811A0163 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (mailpolicy-02.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net [192.168.1.27]) by mailgw01.dd24.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82125FAA2 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 17:14:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailpolicy-02.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net
Received: from mailgw01.dd24.net ([192.168.1.35]) by localhost (mailpolicy-02.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net [192.168.1.30]) (amavisd-new, port 10235) with ESMTP id zgR2ZJGX5CBO for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 17:14:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from heisenberg.fritz.box (ppp-93-104-116-14.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.116.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgw01.dd24.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 17:14:38 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1420132477.4562.6.camel@scientia.net>
From: Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 18:14:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTHaBg-XRWpQiLN5zo11=b24q8OgE6g0X_7F2nbtS+6FnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141231154418.6639764.33790.24403@certicom.com> <D0C9CE59.3B14A%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk> <CALqxMTHaBg-XRWpQiLN5zo11=b24q8OgE6g0X_7F2nbtS+6FnA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="sha-512"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; boundary="=-idylUpfiYRaXppvtvPPc"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/4sy9qbZiWlmwp3uxHk8kEwUhz7c
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] malicious DH base points [was Re: should the CFRG really strive for consensus?]
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 17:14:52 -0000

On Thu, 2015-01-01 at 13:39 +0100, Adam Back wrote: 
> Seems like on
> topic and to the point, not spam.
plus: it seems kinda dangerous to me, if certain topics are more or
less... well not forbidden, but at least "moderated to silence".

CFRG should be really open, even if this includes more wood and less
trees,... trust is very important and if people feel that some
topics/questions/concerns might have been suppressed, CFRG will have the
same problems as NIST.


Cheers,
Chris.

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status