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

David Lloyd-Jones <> Sat, 15 August 2015 11:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC0A1B2E49 for <>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hYM7WtqRb2km for <>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D91F11B2E48 for <>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so92577342iod.3 for <>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
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 :cc:content-type; bh=5RIIqT75A9Lb/lIm9JhOcAUSrJkdUrhckbe1poa++bY=; b=hOH51NPmXRfX0Cq9Y52KRDsAdBBZ5IjOdP4fxJZfZdoXLxnt/JmagwhzKdzw75Fmr9 JWgXTImmWHdZvGECfBZZiXHRMIVYnHA3orM3J3Jm62r3wCKTmcrA8xpiyzwnxb+9EMnJ JB8jA9bX1J7CFi9UePLhpqopRMkDAHkO4NH19UshNxYw7ZyS8uN0xGQ7dwRUyvfaQCZ2 e6zQrjxc7o2AdxZT4R1AGpLkYS9qF8TPg4BCIR7jp9Jisx1JrqM1FYKcrEhHmaqUxfJe xXHvCaCnFVY2ihAmREr6ATg82yOlGwb69jdC29FJz8Dndji7MKKzVNYP42cCYpQGM7Cg h4lQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id d12mr55711036ioe.131.1439637855360; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 07:24:15 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: David Lloyd-Jones <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141b9d6f95c42051d57cee0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [saag] NIST requests comments on using ISO/IEC 19790:2012 as the U.S. Federal Standard for cryptographic modules
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:24:17 -0000


None of

is behind a paywall.

What is it you have "heard," Stephen, that has given Phil this avalanche of
"reason to object"?

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the documentation within those
catalogues costs money.  There was a time in the early days of Oracle when
the docs for their basic database software cost US$6,000.  I paid US$92 for
my IBM equivalent a few years ago, but these are not paywalls.  They are
costs of operating docs.

(I suspect that that $6,000 was because Larry knew he was working the
American taxpayer over just one time, and in 1983 that was still real money
to him: gas for the motorbike, not the jet.)

Is it a question of that sort of thing?

Parenthetically, I notice that the correspondence thread "Information
Security" over on Google+ has recently fractured in two, I would guess
because the main feed is full of juvenile ranting.


On 15 August 2015 at 04:23, Phil Lello <>; wrote:

> I'm not in the US or trading with US companies, so presumably not
> affected, but the paywall alone sounds like a reasonable grounds to object
> to me - it prevents reasonable review by people with no reason to buy the
> standard, and presumably also creates a smaller pool of suppliers (since it
> will eliminate those who don't buy the spec). {snipped}