Re: [TLS] 3GPP forbids support of MD5, SHA-1, non-AEAD, and non-PFS in TLS

[Joseph Salowey <[e-mail]>]

Hi Folks.

This isn't a topic for this working group list.  Please take the discussion
elsewhere.

Thanks,

Joe

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 12:41 PM Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> Amusing attempt to rewrite history.  Your disagreement means nothing,
> fortunately, and folks can claim FUD all they want.
>
> The reality is that the actions in this group are facing increasing
> exposure to antitrust, tort, consumer protection, and tax-related
> actions.  If you don't want to be cautious, then lawyer up...or at least
> get ISOC to buy you more insurance. :-) Oh, is it clear who is covered
> by the insurance?
>
> cheers,
> tony
>
>
> On 2020-03-08 12:59 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> > On 08/03/2020 16:35, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> >> Stephen,
> >>
> >> It is not false.
> > We disagree. SDNS != TLS. TLS was SSL with the middle
> > S standing for socket, which wasn't part of SDNS or
> > GOSIP that I recall.
> >
> >> It is simply largely unknown because of subsequent
> >> IETF related narratives that choose to omit the history.  The documents
> >> are available online - although portions remain classified.
> > Hah, that's funny. And with the classified documents
> > defense of the falsehood, I'm done debunking this.
> >
> > S.
> >
> >> A request
> >> is pending for their declassification and release.  You can find some of
> >> the details in the links in this article.
> >>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190124_creating_tls_the_pioneering_role_of_ruth_nelson/
> >>
> >>
> >> Ruth Nelson - who led some of the important components - appeared at
> >> last October's NSA Crypto History Symposium.  She filled in some of the
> >> details and the work was recognized by those there. Whit was also there
> >> also there and gave a great presentation. Unfortunately, women in this
> >> field seem not to get the credit they deserve.
> >>
> >> --tony
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2020-03-08 10:56 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >>> On 08/03/2020 14:46, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> >>>> TLS is particular has a history going back to 1986 when the platform
> was
> >>>> first announced by the USG and the TLS specification was instantiated
> >>>> initially in the GOSIP standards and then in ITU/ISO standards.
> >>> That's false. I've seen it repeated a few times but it
> >>> remains false. Mostly, this falsehood seems to be repeated
> >>> in tandem with efforts one could interpret as attempts
> >>> to create FUD about Internet related security.
> >>>
> >>> TLS started in the IETF as a compromise between Netscape
> >>> and Microsoft proposals for how to secure HTTP.
> >>>
> >>> X.509 started as part of X.400, then X.500 and is used by
> >>> TLS. Today, I would bet almost all implementers never need
> >>> to look beyond RFC5280 for X.509. And I hope it stays that
> >>> way until we somehow figure out how to retire X.509.
> >>>
> >>> S.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> TLS mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>