Hi, > On 12/06/2013 06:49 PM, t.p. wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Stefan Winter" <stefan.winter@xxxxxxxxxx> >> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 10:15 AM >> > >> If encryption makes terrorism, crime and so on more likely, then we >> could see countries impose restrictions on encryption in the same way as >> for guns, and a few years down the line, the role of the IETF in >> encouraging the use of strong encryption could be seen as a serious >> misjudgment, one that is damaging to the standing of the IETF. Uh. At least my mail client indents the above as if it was me making this ridiculous statement. Disclaimer: that fine example of misguided thinking above is Tom Petch's alone. Stefan > > Wow. The IETF already has a consensus on the use of strong > crytopgraphy. And has had for 17 years. Please read RFC 1984. > If you have read it, I have no clue how you could accept it > and make the above (spurious, but that's beside the point) > argument. If you have read it, but don't accept it, then go > right ahead and write a draft suggesting a replacement that > fits your worldview better. If you have not read it, please > do. > > On 12/06/2013 06:57 PM, t.p. wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: "Stefan Winter" <stefan.winter@xxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 11:58 AM >>> >>> On 12/06/2013 10:15 AM, Stefan Winter wrote: >>>> The TV manufacturer could have used it - they were simply stupid >>>> enough to forget about it. >>> >>> I think in that case, the person who spotted the issue would >>> also have considered it odd if ciphertext continued to be >>> emitted after they had clicked the "don't send" button. >> >> The person who spotted the issue did click "don't send" and the messages >> continued to be sent (according to the reports). Which is, after all, >> exactly what you would expect to see with good security - don't give the >> other parties an opportunity to use traffic analysis to determine what >> is going on. > > My point was in response to your saying that that case > demonstrated that ciphertext would prevented the person > from knowing their TV was sending out messages when > they didn't want that. The fact is in that case that > any message ciphertext or plain would demonstrate that > the TV is misbehaving. So your argument falls. > > Cheers, > S. > -- Stefan WINTER Ingenieur de Recherche Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473 PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the recipient's key is known to me http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66
Attachment:
0x8A39DC66.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature