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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 15 August 2015 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 5DF881A88C5 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 05:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 UqPscsZFsrGe for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 05:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E0F71A88D0 for <saag@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 05:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0F8BE79; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:51:00 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxDjsozYoVm7; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:50:59 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.42.22.71]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBFCBBE73; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:50:58 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1439643059; bh=u8DmMut8ceb1lz5suJMgN2vahfSXqTiUyqz4zyTT8a4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ErPbwO9/C51Q9/Odoxnw9+y7CjGDRvUcgqgO9O7mAn9SoD5ldfCjAh5+dAKSTNEd6 nnNHBEJ+vIaECqUIrUrq3W7GE2AgEGgoG2gjSDNVONOfG/me/3Q6i6VOfElO/hKX9A eTz+dgthKXxQTeZHfL7oGSbJa7NgPt3gFomT9R5k=
Message-ID: <55CF35B2.9020302@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:50:58 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Lloyd-Jones <david.lloydjones@gmail.com>, phil@dunlop-lello.uk
References: <55CE5A40.3090804@cs.tcd.ie> <CAPofZaGT__FmChCWNf=iMsyD4s7c1SpUus2Lm_6ubhA3ayfGqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG-id0ZYG946xZQrsfrMqyQunLpg=ZeGGP8BcQRVtFE0s7b3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG-id0ZYG946xZQrsfrMqyQunLpg=ZeGGP8BcQRVtFE0s7b3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/p8mEv4wmlqrgcL2ic4CCuFuBgxY>
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 12:51:02 -0000


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.