Re: [saag] NIST requests comments on using ISO/IEC 19790:2012 as the U.S. Federal Standard for cryptographic modules

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 17 August 2015 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76281B2ED1 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 3Q0SFeu5KQAt for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722331ACDDC for <saag@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42B9F24135; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:48:39 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6U6COt8Gn--i; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:47:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-108-51-128-219.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.128.219]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E9EF24145; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:48:18 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-339--178896087
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACz1E9rg8ZtHLCpZ8utBF67PTOiDKWTDGvepqL0SXL_0WR0=+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:48:08 -0400
Message-Id: <F2C87ED1-E00B-4B46-AF01-33FF4FD0A237@vigilsec.com>
References: <55CE5A40.3090804@cs.tcd.ie> <CAPofZaGT__FmChCWNf=iMsyD4s7c1SpUus2Lm_6ubhA3ayfGqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG-id0ZYG946xZQrsfrMqyQunLpg=ZeGGP8BcQRVtFE0s7b3DQ@mail.gmail.com> <55CF35B2.9020302@cs.tcd.ie> <CACz1E9rg8ZtHLCpZ8utBF67PTOiDKWTDGvepqL0SXL_0WR0=+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Whyte <wwhyte@securityinnovation.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/5z_U6b0TbGB6D8RDc4EzKb4acU4>
Cc: "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [saag] NIST requests comments on using ISO/IEC 19790:2012 as the U.S. Federal Standard for cryptographic modules
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:48:52 -0000

It is not clear to me that the use of ISO/IEC 19790 offers any improvement for the people that make crypto modules or the people that purchase crypto modules.  The specification being behind a paywall means that fewer people will know what it says.  Since the existing FIPS documents are freely available online, this seems to me to be a move in the wrong direction.

Russ


On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:21 PM, William Whyte wrote:

> In fairness, NIST explicitly call this out themselves at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/12/2015-19743/government-use-of-standards-for-security-and-conformance-requirements-for-cryptographic-algorithm: 
> 
>  NIST is also interested in feedback on the impacts of a potential U.S. Government requirement for use and conformance using a standard with a fee-based model where organizations must purchase copies of the ISO/IEC 19790:2014.
> 
> William
> 
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>; wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15/08/15 12:24, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> > What is it you have "heard," Stephen, that has given Phil this avalanche of
> > "reason to object"?
> 
> I already said that I have been told that the ISO spec is behind
> a paywall, that is all. And now I've said it twice:-)
> 
> Whether or not that's a deal for folks who've previously been
> willing to subject themselves to FIPS140 fun is a reasonable
> question. But it's also reasonable to point out that that is
> a barrier to broad, open review.
> 
> And of course, if you care about any of this, then telling
> NIST what you think is the correct action.
> 
> S.