Re: [Cfrg] Encrypt in place guidance

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 3/31/20 7:56 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>   * **I will write the draft using Speck for 64 bit block.  That will
>     get the draft out and open up for discussion.
>
> Simon and speck are controversial, and almost nobody believed that 
> they weren’t deliberately crippled.  It hasn’t been proven.  But there 
> were enough concerns that ISO rejected them.  See 
> https://rwc.iacr.org/2019/slides/RWC87slides.pdf
>
> I mention all this because I am sure using Speck will be 
> controversial, and you need to be sure that you are willing to take on 
> that battle.
>

I will look at those slides, as the information I found on the ISO 
standard was 2018.

So far I am using it as a placeholder, as nothing else seems to be 
available.  Put it in a ID, and hopefully alternatives will come forward.

And we all know that placeholders all get replaced before any code gets 
locked in.

Right?

For this limited use, crippled is probably not an issue.

An observer has to be in place to 'see' the broadcast messages. Once 
they hit the USS, they are decrypted and the UTM contains the cleartext 
data forwarded by the USS.  NSA will have authorization into the US 
UTM.  The others, they have to have equipment there to see the 
messages.  And they probably will be into many of those UTM anyway...

If Speck is totally broken and any observer can quickly decrypt the 
content, then this is a non-starter.

Hopefully this will be an opertunity for some good work.