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

David Lloyd-Jones <david.lloydjones@gmail.com> Sat, 15 August 2015 11:24 UTC

Return-Path: <david.lloydjones@gmail.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 BDC0A1B2E49 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hYM7WtqRb2km for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D91F11B2E48 for <saag@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so92577342iod.3 for <saag@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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 10.107.155.12 with SMTP id d12mr55711036ioe.131.1439637855360; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.175.141 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPofZaGT__FmChCWNf=iMsyD4s7c1SpUus2Lm_6ubhA3ayfGqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55CE5A40.3090804@cs.tcd.ie> <CAPofZaGT__FmChCWNf=iMsyD4s7c1SpUus2Lm_6ubhA3ayfGqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 07:24:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG-id0ZYG946xZQrsfrMqyQunLpg=ZeGGP8BcQRVtFE0s7b3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Lloyd-Jones <david.lloydjones@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, phil@dunlop-lello.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141b9d6f95c42051d57cee0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/lv7iN-sg-yCYzQ4vFl0gQpmIMY8>
Cc: 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: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:24:17 -0000

Stephen,

None of
http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/#aug12
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsFIPS.html#140-2
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52906
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52906

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.

-dlj.



On 15 August 2015 at 04:23, Phil Lello <phil@dunlop-lello.uk>; 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}
>