Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

Watson Ladd <> Fri, 27 December 2013 23:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7041F1AE96F for <>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:57:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zkve1x2XU9BB for <>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2719B1AE96D for <>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id hi5so14761349wib.2 for <>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:56:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=oIEkGp3sh9/lWcYadWxsIkpdt9yYSJ5jSzXRk1a87d0=; b=SCJpu59cE6268PGxTauQAeE6puu4m1vq6RZdld+3KzXoMbu9vekiv1LRCpnGEcWCTM ri5mm+rq7DbRaQyYrSmsOiXUn7VK3Wl258lKxiPN3laOqknSvzPbwSosmwMrJe1+nuuc Jvks3EAuzDb/Ni0welDmlMntrxun8m0tUiElaUzniQehMvS+02mO9kBJMXCrWFk3KHP/ tlhHZtNpJPr1quZwo8NtJR/s+NtPQYXisHj7ZFIj3WkEjaxP2iC0KolzuB1quAkyrPDz 9UNWwzIHjw/R5J/HWfJdz3QcPs+SNysX75rTkMPQ8kaRudCQJEGa4N8hlYvmcMek0CPR YjCA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id gi4mr32435489wjc.5.1388188617811; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:56:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:56:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 18:56:57 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Watson Ladd <>
To: "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 23:57:05 -0000

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Dan Harkins <> wrote:
>   Yoav, Henrick (and probably others),
>   It has been pointed out to me in private email that this sentence is
> quite ambiguous:
>>>>> On 2013-12-24 21:09, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>>>>>   Realize too that had Kevin's employer not given these people the
>>>>>> opportunity to strike their fashionable pose there would be no
>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>> of IRTF process or what the CFRG's place in the world is.
>   I meant that Kevin's employer presented a convenient (and fashionably
> popular) target to criticize. I did not mean that his employer was doing
> anything to create the environment in which people can comfortably (or
> fashionably) criticize.
>   Hope this clears it up.

This whole mess started when thanks to your draft, it was revealed
that a lack of effort by the CFRG
was reported as a positive statement on security. The supposedly
"open" CFRG had over the years atrophied,
to the point where the chair would think that no objection was
equivalent to a positive review. As a participant,
do you feel that that is an adequate foundation for this WG's activities?

That the chair works for an organization devoted to subverting crypto
standards, and that had in fact done so on several
occasions (DUAL_EC_DRNG, Crypto AG, the RSA side payment attack) makes
this sort of misstatement, and the fact
that several long-time members regard it as acceptable, quite
worrying. The NSA is a *fashionable* target because it's
one of the few actors with a mission involving subverting standards:
if Cisco makes a secure standard they prefer, I really
don't care.

Do you believe the CFRG has provided good service to the IETF during
the years it has been active? Do you believe
that the CFRG has increased the security of IETF produced protocols?
Let's focus on the issues here: the CFRG
isn't doing its job.

>   regards,
>   Dan.
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin