To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <Cfrg@irtf.org>
References: <1777c26d-4e8c-453d-422e-b1f238105bd5@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <cc0ded6b-e768-c7c2-9d90-eba380c56f76@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:50:54 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1777c26d-4e8c-453d-422e-b1f238105bd5@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="lF5AvI0QuElgu80roAiUwL3mGeNGa9xBI"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/PNx-X6t83ng8qbHd7ZnFwQqGiGs>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] [TLS] wiretapping draft - collecting rebuttal arguments
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--lF5AvI0QuElgu80roAiUwL3mGeNGa9xBI
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="QodADKSwsqT21Uh5cXe63DqE6KNvbAQu3";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <Cfrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <cc0ded6b-e768-c7c2-9d90-eba380c56f76@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [TLS] wiretapping draft - collecting rebuttal arguments
References: <1777c26d-4e8c-453d-422e-b1f238105bd5@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <1777c26d-4e8c-453d-422e-b1f238105bd5@cs.tcd.ie>

--QodADKSwsqT21Uh5cXe63DqE6KNvbAQu3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


FYI. Contributions from folks here would be welcome
if you're interested,
Cheers,
S.

PS: This relates to ongoing discussion on the TLS list.

On 11/07/17 11:48, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>=20
> Hiya,
>=20
> I've asked the chairs for a slot in Prague to allow
> for rebutting the claims made by the proponents of
> the most recent wiretapping draft we're (sadly, still)
> discussing. [1]
>=20
> So far the chairs seem un-keen, but I'm gonna keep
> asking as I think having a rebuttal for this kind
> of bad idea is needed. (And again, I'd prefer the
> chairs ditch the entire idea of discussing this at
> all.)
>=20
> In any case, and perhaps with a view to longer-term
> documenting the arguments against the various "let's
> break TLS" proposals we continually see, I've started
> to collect some of those arguments in a github repo [2].
>=20
> I would welcome contributions to [2] however folks
> would like to provide 'em (but ideally via PRs) so
> we can provide a nice crowd-sourced rebuttal in
> Prague, either as a presentation or via a lively
> mic-line if need be.
>=20
> Cheers,
> S.
>=20
> PS: I've just started on this, but will go through
> the list archive to extract others' arguments and
> add acks. Not sure if that'll get done before we
> end up in Prague but please do let me know if I've
> used an argument you made so I can ack that later.
>=20
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13-01
> [2] https://github.com/sftcd/tinfoil
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>=20


--QodADKSwsqT21Uh5cXe63DqE6KNvbAQu3--

--lF5AvI0QuElgu80roAiUwL3mGeNGa9xBI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZZK2QAAoJEC88hzaAX42igpkIAIBAMOTTa9in20d6Ac2Rcpoo
0iyxQlrRoPHfRByawW6qowtPKbJ5WqdcIIYNXkUAtzspnFP3n+CFhKExPMq+TIA9
JoWqhYwFGpW6ZAfVTXDQkY3Qwb+PXeEMjAYd/Sli9v/Og5M3z90iuvM4m9Iot9Dd
thGyzleZJcE6fBtTt8ofqugQR1TdtBdQxS87bgGVMiDbGrSY7XZ/Mz1lKj+MfY0c
mXwBCvc9tBaY/UBHXRD50cu0TtH+s7gbwJ4XGAmJdEXEfljvV34hE70LnkLR2VkR
MxS5h6h043e9OIHF1CXqdl0IYzEOftqK6rl8OIMe8/Ub+HX8cZg5RDhA2v8Q/Dw=
=OxwR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--lF5AvI0QuElgu80roAiUwL3mGeNGa9xBI--