[Cryptography] Opening Discussion: Speculation on "BULLRUN"
jmamodio at gmail.com
Sun Sep 8 10:46:52 UTC 2013
Now is pretty clear, Randy is The Mole !!!! ROFL
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Gregory Perry <Gregory.Perry at govirtual.tv>
> Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 21:14:47 +0000
> From: Gregory Perry <Gregory.Perry at govirtual.tv>
> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com>
> Cc: "cryptography at metzdowd.com" <cryptography at metzdowd.com>, ianG <
> iang at iang.org>
> Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Opening Discussion: Speculation on "BULLRUN"
> On 09/07/2013 05:03 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Good theory only the CA industry tried very hard to deploy and was
> prevented from doing so because Randy Bush abused his position as DNSEXT
> chair to prevent modification of the spec to meet the deployment
> requirements in .com.
> DNSSEC would have deployed in 2003 with the DNS ATLAS upgrade had the IETF
> followed the clear consensus of the DNSEXT working group and approved the
> OPT-IN proposal. The code was written and ready to deploy.
> I told the IESG and the IAB that the VeriSign position was no bluff and
> that if OPT-IN did not get approved there would be no deployment in .com. A
> business is not going to spend $100million on deployment of a feature that
> has no proven market demand when the same job can be done for $5 million
> with only minor changes.
> And this is exactly why there is no real security on the Internet.
> Because the IETF and standards committees and working groups are all in
> reality political fiefdoms and technological monopolies aimed at lining the
> pockets of a select few companies deemed "worthy" of authenticating user
> documentation for purposes of establishing online credibility.
> There is no reason for any of this, and I would once again cite to Bitcoin
> as an example of how an entire secure online currency standard can be
> created and maintained in a decentralized fashion without the need for
> complex hierarchies of quasi-political commercial interests.
> Encrypting SMTP is trivial, it's all about the standard to make it happen.
> Encrypting IPv6 was initially a mandatory part of the spec, but then it
> somehow became discretionary. The nuts and bolts of strong crypto have
> been around for decades, but the IETF and related standards "powers to be"
> are more interested in creating a global police state than guaranteeing
> some semblance of confidential and privacy for Internet users.
> The cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at metzdowd.com
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5
More information about the NANOG