Re: My response to both the analysis of CIPE by Gutmann, Slashdotand the response by the CIPE list

[Phil Scarratt <fil,AT,draxsen,DOT,com>]

Jake Appelbaum wrote:
> I wanted to contribute an outsiders perspective.

Thanks for the contribution - a very worthy contribution....

> I first read Peter Gutmanns analysis [1] as linked from Slashdot [2] and
> later I found the archive for cipe-l [3].
>
> After reading Gutmann's short but to the point email a few points that
> he made seemed obvious. Some of the flaws were not so obvious. CIPE
> seemed to have some very simple flaws and some of the fixes were easy to
> implement.
>
> I found some of it delivered in such a manner that would upset people
> who were highly vested in the projects he was criticizing. Perhaps it was
> the comment that I also found to be so amusing, something to do with
> sound waves. Amusing as it may be, it's still quite harsh.

The problem with email is the tone is very hard to judge sometimes. 
Getting the right tone in an email message is an artform, which not many 
people have time to perfect. Similar comments may well have produced a 
totally different reaction face-to-face (as unlikely as that seems). I'd 
agree, an amusing comment, however PG was still pretty scathing towards 
those who have committed so much time and effort to the poject.

> I then read through the posts on Slashdot that declared CIPE to be
> dead. I found these to be really immature and silly considering the
> nature of F/OSS.
>
> The need for some change is now, not the time for it's funeral.
> Thanks to the F/OSS method of development this is all very possible.

3 cheers for F/OSS

> The only series of comments on Slashdot worth reading (IMHO) were by Dan
> Kaminsky [4].

Agreed.

*SNIP*

> Others want to wait for Olaf (the primary author of CIPE) to speak on
> this issue before making any major conclusions [10]. Some people are
> thanking for tool that has some major flaws as pointed out by a well
> respected cryptographer [11] 

I think they were meant as encouragement. Certainly on my part it was. I 
recognised there appeared to be issues needing to be dealt with but that 
doesn't mean that I'm not grateful to Olaf and Damion (and others) for 
their efforts so far. I felt due to the tone, some encouragement was needed.

> The fact that Olaf hasn't replied is a huge problem for my assurances
> that this project is on track to fix these problems, I know that I am
> not alone [13]. What is more shocking to me is the lack of understanding
> about a protocol/security method being broken. It seems that many people
> doing small tests of their own [14] find it to be acceptable because it
> will fit their clients needs. Their own greed and the ease of setup
> being the bottom line. 

That may be the case, but on the other hand, not everyone can afford or 
justify $60,000 to decide which is the most secure solution. I think 
there is a valid point in deciding how sensitive the information is, and 
that should reflect on what lengths are needed to ensure it's security. 
Obviously, you go with the securest option you can afford or justify, 
and part of the whole process (hopefully) would be advice from a 
knowledgeable source without a vested interest.

*SNIP*

> Let us make sure that this gets fix. Let us also make sure that this
> situation is handled well and discussed openly. 

Definitely...

Fil
willing-to-contribute-in-whatever-way-he-can
(however little that may be)