https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg03736.HTML On Jan 16, 2014 2:17 PM, Cari Machet wrote: > > well that is purely disgusting on what f'ing grounds was it denied? is there any doc info on that 'transaction' ??? > > Cari Machet > NYC 646-436-7795 > carimachet@gmail.com > AIM carismachet > Syria +963-099 277 3243 > Amman +962 077 636 9407 > Berlin +49 152 11779219 > Twitter: @carimachet > > Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the > addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this > information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without > permission is strictly prohibited. > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:12 PM, John L Grubbs wrote: >> >> Trevor's request was denied last week. :( >> >> On Jan 16, 2014 2:04 PM, Cari Machet wrote: >>> >>> BEAUTIFUL >>> >>> Cari Machet >>> NYC 646-436-7795 >>> carimachet@gmail.com >>> AIM carismachet >>> Syria +963-099 277 3243 >>> Amman +962 077 636 9407 >>> Berlin +49 152 11779219 >>> Twitter: @carimachet >>> >>> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the >>> addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the >>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this >>> information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without >>> permission is strictly prohibited. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Moritz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg03554.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear IRTF Chair, IAB, and CFRG: >>>> >>>> I'd like to request the removal of Kevin Igoe from CFRG co-chair. >>>> >>>> The Crypto Forum Research Group is chartered to provide crypto advice >>>> to IETF Working Groups. As CFRG co-chair for the last 2 years, Kevin >>>> has shaped CFRG discussion and provided CFRG opinion to WGs. >>>> >>>> Kevin's handling of the "Dragonfly" protocol raises doubts that he is >>>> performing these duties competently. Additionally, Kevin's employment >>>> with the National Security Agency raises conflict-of-interest >>>> concerns. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dragonfly Background >>>> ---- >>>> Dragonfly is a "Password-Authenticated Key Exchange" protocol (or >>>> "PAKE"). Dragonfly was proposed to CFRG 2 years ago [PROPOSAL]. >>>> Compared to better-known PAKEs, Dragonfly has no security proof, a >>>> lack of extensive security analysis, nonfunctional complications added >>>> for IPR reasons, and some security issues [REVIEW]. >>>> >>>> Dragonfly became a hot topic recently when the TLS WG disputed CFRG's >>>> alleged report that Dragonfly was "satisfactory", as well as disputing >>>> that this report reflected CFRG consensus [TLS_1]. After extensive >>>> criticism of Dragonfly, the TLS WG ceased work on a Dragonfly >>>> extension [TLS_2]. >>>> >>>> >>>> NSA Background >>>> ---- >>>> The National Security Agency ("NSA") is a U.S. Intelligence Agency >>>> which is believed to devote considerable resources to: >>>> - "Influence policies, standards and specifications for commercial >>>> public key technologies" >>>> - "Shape the worldwide cryptography marketplace to make it more >>>> tractable to advanced cryptanalytic capabilities" [BULLRUN] >>>> >>>> While much is unknown about these activities, the NSA is known to have >>>> placed a "back door" in a NIST standard for random number generation >>>> [ECDRBG]. A recent report from the President's Review Group >>>> recommends that the NSA: >>>> - "fully support and not undermine efforts to create encryption standards" >>>> - "not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken, or make vulnerable >>>> generally available commercial software" [PRESIDENTS] >>>> >>>> This suggests the NSA is currently behaving contrary to the recommendations. >>>> >>>> >>>> Reasons for requesting Kevin's removal >>>> ---- >>>> 1) Kevin has provided the *ONLY* positive feedback for Dragonfly that >>>> can be found on the CFRG mailing list or meeting minutes. The >>>> contrast between Kevin's enthusiasm and the group's skepticism is >>>> striking [CFRG_SUMMARY]. It's unclear what this enthusiasm is based >>>> on. There's no record of Kevin making any effort to understand >>>> Dragonfly's unusual structure, compare it to alternatives, consider >>>> possible use cases, or construct a formal security analysis. >>>> >>>> 2) Twice Kevin suggested a technique for deriving the Dragonfly >>>> password-based element which would make the protocol easy to break >>>> [IGOE_1, IGOE_2]. He also endorsed an ineffective attempt to avoid >>>> timing attacks by adding extra iterations to one of the loops [IGOE_3, >>>> IGOE_4]. These are surprising mistakes from an experienced >>>> cryptographer. >>>> >>>> 3) Kevin's approval of Dragonfly to the TLS WG misrepresented CFRG >>>> consensus, which was skeptical of Dragonfly [CFRG_SUMMARY]. >>>> >>>> 4) Kevin's NSA affiliation raises unpleasant but unavoidable >>>> questions regarding these actions. It's entirely possible these are >>>> just mistakes by a novice chair who lacks experience in a particular >>>> sort of protocol and is being pressured by IETF participants to >>>> endorse something. But it's hard to escape an impression of >>>> carelessness and unseriousness in Kevin's work. One wonders whether >>>> the NSA is happy to preside over this sort of sloppy crypto design. >>>> >>>> While that's of course speculation, it remains baffling that an >>>> experienced cryptographer would champion such a shoddy protocol. The >>>> CFRG chairs have been silent for months, and haven't responded to >>>> attempts to clarify this. >>>> >>>> >>>> Conclusion >>>> ---- >>>> The position of CFRG chair (or co-chair) is a role of crucial >>>> importance to the IETF community. The IETF is in desperate need of >>>> trustworthy crypto guidance from parties who are above suspicion. I >>>> encourage the IAB and IRTF to replace Kevin Igoe with someone who can >>>> provide this. >>>> >>>> Thanks for considering this request. >>>> >>>> >>>> Trevor >>> >>> >