From ietf at kenkubota.de Thu Oct 15 14:53:49 2026 From: ietf at kenkubota.de (Ken Kubota) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 14:53:49 +0200 Subject: [ISP] [TLS] NSA / IETF Discussion List In-Reply-To: References: <0FD7B0E3-674D-45BA-88EF-5909D241442F@kenkubota.de> <1792058979427258421.1792058979@vision4d.ai> Message-ID: Hi Rob, This response misses the broader issue. As Professor Bernstein noted during the SSH WG discussions, current practices by WG Chairs are undermining active participation within the Working Group, specifically highlighting the points outlined as "2. Chairs sabotaging participation" and "3. Chairs sabotaging resolution of technical disputes" [1]. This observation has been confirmed through my personal experience in both the TLS and SSH Working Groups. Kind regards, Ken Kubota ____________________________________________________ Ken Kubota https://doi.org/10.4444/100 [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/KwzbhHP-6cK4VSWT04mNv_cWyFI/ > Am 15.10.2026 um 12:57 schrieb Rob Wilton (rwilton) : > > Hi Waqas, > > I don't follow SEAT, and don't know this document or discussion, but I do understand the IETF process rules pretty well. > > At that first data tracker link you provided you will see: > > "This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D). Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF. This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the IETF standards process ." > > Unless the SEAT WG has adopted the document (and hence the name of the draft changes to draft-ietf-seat-early-attestation, then this is NOT an IETF document and hence it is incorrect to say that the SEAT WG is "working on it". The only status that this draft has is that it is an idea from a set of authors which they would like the SEAT WG to consider. Anyone can submit a draft for consideration by the WG. Perhaps the authors will consider your patch, perhaps they won't. It is up to them since they are currently solely responsible for the document, not the SEAT WG, nor the IETF. > > Also worth seeing https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft/. > > Kind regards, > Rob > > > From: waqas.nawaz at vision4d.ai > Date: Thursday, 15 October 2026 at 11:11 > To: ietf at kenkubota.de > Cc: ietf at ietf.org ; tls at ietf.org ; ietf-discussion at listi.jpberlin.de > Subject: Re: [TLS] NSA / IETF Discussion List > > Dear Ken Kubota, > IETF has SEAT working group. It works on TLS 1.3 extension. SEAT has https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fossati-seat-early-attestation/. > 41 high class CVEs were filed against it: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-intra-handshake-fail/ > They also provided patch to fix. The patch was never applied. > Anyone who talks about CVEs is given "official warning" by chairs. > Is it in scope of your mailing list https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/ietf-discussion? > Thanks, > Waqas > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 12:14 PM Ken Kubota wrote: > For those who disagree with NSA activities at the IETF or wish to find solutions for the issues concerning the current IETF situation, you can join this mailing list: > > https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/ietf-discussion > > > Kind regards, > > Ken Kubota > > ____________________________________________________ > > Ken Kubota > https://doi.org/10.4444/100 > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls at ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave at ietf.org > _______________________________________________ > ietf mailing list -- ietf at ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-leave at ietf.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ietf at kenkubota.de Thu Oct 15 15:19:41 2026 From: ietf at kenkubota.de (Ken Kubota) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 15:19:41 +0200 Subject: [ISP] =?utf-8?q?List_Information_Update_=E2=80=93_Re=3A_=5BTLS?= =?utf-8?q?=5D_NSA_/_IETF_Discussion_List?= In-Reply-To: <40250A15-D3AF-40B5-9945-40CE0C4913B1@kenkubota.de> References: <0FD7B0E3-674D-45BA-88EF-5909D241442F@kenkubota.de>

<40250A15-D3AF-40B5-9945-40CE0C4913B1@kenkubota.de> Message-ID: <1C27E9B7-CFA9-4C17-87E6-94A4D3C78789@kenkubota.de> In technical terms, the old mailing list was decommissioned and replaced with a new one. Although the old list and its web interface have been permanently removed, you may observe that the old URL remains accessible temporarily due to caching. Therefore, please use the new link exclusively for all future interactions, including subscriptions and managing your account. Kind regards, Ken Kubota ____________________________________________________ Ken Kubota https://doi.org/10.4444/100 > Am 15.10.2026 um 14:28 schrieb Ken Kubota : > >>> This list is not hosted by the IETF, so could you >>> clarify what the scope and affiliation is? > > > To prevent confusion regarding the mailing list identity and affiliation, the mailing list name and description were updated. > > > The new submission address is: internet-standards-policy at listi.jpberlin.de > (Replacing: ietf-discussion at listi.jpberlin.de - now obsolete) > > The new link is: https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/internet-standards-policy > (Replacing: https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/ietf-discussion) > > > The updated list description and disclaimers read as follows: > > > Internet Standards Policy > > Background: > https://nsa.2026.action.cr.yp.to > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FsbYnIjnGGX4Eek5DuUiZpc3cBI/ > > The list archive is public. > To avoid spam, illegal content, and disruption of list operations, the mailing list is moderated (usually on a daily basis). > > This mailing list operates as an independent private initiative. There is no affiliation. > > It operates independently of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and is neither provided by, nor endorsed by, the IETF. Views expressed here are not official IETF positions. > > IETF is a registered trademark. For details, see: https://trustee.ietf.org/assets/trademarks-and-logos/ > Usage here follows the IETF guidelines: "The acronym ?IETF? may be used factually in any online or traditional publication, in presentations and documents, and in press and media reports, as a descriptive term for the Internet Engineering Task Force." (https://trustee.ietf.org/about/faq/#logo-acronym, October 15, 2026.) > > > Kind regards, > > Ken Kubota > > ____________________________________________________ > > Ken Kubota > https://doi.org/10.4444/100 > > > >> Am 15.10.2026 um 02:22 schrieb Ken Kubota : >> >> My responses are provided in line with the quoted text below. >> >> >>> Am 14.10.2026 um 16:02 schrieb Jan Schaumann : >>> >>> Ken Kubota wrote: >>>> For those who disagree with NSA activities at the IETF or wish to find solutions for the issues concerning the current IETF situation, you can join this mailing list: >>>> >>>> https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/ietf-discussion >>> >>> This list is not hosted by the IETF, so could you >>> clarify what the scope and affiliation is? >> >> The scope was intentionally kept open to encourage people to join and contribute their ideas, wishes, and visions for the future. >> Although the NSA's current activities at the IETF (NSA's SIGINT Enabling Project [1]) were the catalyst for creating this mailing list, numerous other issues within the IETF remain unaddressed. >> A significant discrepancy exists between the IETF's stated principles and its actual practices. >> The internet, and hence the IETF, should serve the end user, as outlined in an RFC [2]. >> In reality, however, the IETF appears to serve large U.S. companies whose interests mirror those of the NSA, such as by erroneously asserting a "rough consensus" [3] at the TLS Working Group in a decision which effectively weakens internet encryption (Professor Bernstein: "But there wasn't consensus; not even close. There also wasn't "rough consensus"." [4]). >> The leading German computer magazine already published an article concerning the issue of whether the "IETF standardization [is] easy to hijack". [5] >> In my opinion, the answer is clearly yes, and moreover, it is evident to me that the IETF (or the IETF decision-making process) as a whole has been compromised/hijacked. [6] >> Please also read the "Background" links at the mailing list website for more information. >> The internet, and consequently internet standardization organisations, should serve rather the end user than large companies, and in a multipolar world, the equality of peoples, and the equality of languages, should be envisioned instead of U.S. primacy / hegemony. China, Russia, and India, and their languages, should play a larger role. >> Bitcoin (or other means of decentralized payment methods) bypassing central banking is important, but seems to have no place in the IETF. >> Although the IETF once undoubtedly delivered valuable outcomes, it has unfortunately become a liability. >> Overall, the prevailing sentiment is that certain organizations operate more as gatekeepers than enablers. >> >> Another purpose of the new mailing list is to bypass IETF censorship, as discussed further below. >> >> The new mailing list is a private initiative, which means that there is no affiliation. >> However, this doesn't exclude the possibility that from the new mailing list's activity something new will arise, might it be an informal structure or an official organization. >> Of course, compliance with privacy laws will be ensured; no data will be passed on to third parties (including a potential future legal entity) without explicit permission or legal requirement. >> On the mailing list website it is clearly announced that mails are available publicly at the mailing list archive (similar to IETF standards). >> >> >>> I.e., shouldn't discussions about the IETF happen on >>> IETF lists? >> >> >> Ideally, this would be the case. >> However, there is a significant discrepancy between what the IETF promises and what it actually does. >> Professor Bernstein has made this explicit in the case of the SSH Working Group chaired by Stephen Farrell and another person: "1. What IETF promises" vs. "2. Chairs sabotaging participation" or "3. Chairs sabotaging resolution of technical disputes" [7]: "issuing continual threats of censorship, presumably scaring many WG participants into silence" [7]. >> In my opinion, the same holds for the TLS Working Group ("The claim of a "rough consensus" was made by a WG Chair composed of three members. One of the TLS WG chairs works for an NSA-related company, while another one works for a CIA-funded company.") [3]. >> Nobel laureate Paul Romer already mentioned that the TLS group discussion is dysfunctional, and people "seem to be afraid to speak up about the mistakes": "I share the concern that many members voice: the group discussion is dysfunctional." [8] "The deep problem is the missing messages. People seem to be afraid to speak up about the mistakes." [9] >> Moreover, there is a tendency at the IETF towards total censorship, as Professor Bernstein pointed out: "2025.10.05: MODPOD: The collapse of IETF's protections for dissent. #ietf #objections #censorship #hybrids" [10], see also [11]. >> In an absurd decision, the TLS WG has "decided to moderate the postings of D. J. Bernstein" [12], whose Curve25519 (X25519 [13]) probably runs 90% of today's internet worldwide [14]. >> In my case, former NSA lifetime employee Deb Cooley has pleaded for removing my publishing rights [15], based on a request by John Mattsson from Ericsson (Swedish Wallenberg family). "They have to firmly align themselves with the Washington agenda in order to keep Ericsson and Saab profitable." [16] >> The Orwellian state of affairs couldn't be more obvious. >> Any discussion of the conflict of interest is framed as and blocked as "personal attack." >> >> Please direct further questions to the new mailing list, as it is an evolving process where everybody may participate freely. >> I also would like to note upfront that answers from my side may take a while. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Ken Kubota >> >> ____________________________________________________ >> >> Ken Kubota >> https://doi.org/10.4444/100 >> >> >> >> [1] https://nsa.2026.action.cr.yp.to >> >> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/UDvPmpd0jIpcFkLgoZZSWlcH6Ok/ >> >> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/BY9FNfpBWerhoAJTZifoaqm56Ic/ >> >> [4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/YuPYdAeSRJkSkfPZsVxGtbLwAb4/ >> >> [5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/G8dyTRb7FXPW8SdztOORvwBFqFQ/ >> >> [6] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FsbYnIjnGGX4Eek5DuUiZpc3cBI/ >> >> [7] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/KwzbhHP-6cK4VSWT04mNv_cWyFI/ >> >> [8] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/7k-EAYb8jn3kt_O8ASunTXXl5gw/ >> >> [9] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZbbelZMerxUU8KRNZHSK7mfHomc/ >> >> [10] https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251005-modpod.html >> >> [11] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XBFEJKSfsKCCR5Xeh-PjtwcdA9U/ >> >> [12] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/V67wl1pWaPg40S6ABfBHuwc0oXM/ >> >> [13] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/-9LEdnzVrE5RORux3Oo_oDDRksU/ >> >> [14] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/g9GKfUq4ku5F4anmHk9aS7XGu6c/ (no endorsement of other parts of the email) >> >> [15] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/GPVoqmoUEaYoynxfAOpl65-jZYA/ >> >> [16] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XBFEJKSfsKCCR5Xeh-PjtwcdA9U/ > > > > ____________________ > > Internet Standards Policy Mailing List > https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/internet-standards-policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ietf at kenkubota.de Thu Oct 15 17:00:02 2026 From: ietf at kenkubota.de (Ken Kubota) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 17:00:02 +0200 Subject: [ISP] IETF Issues In-Reply-To: References: <0FD7B0E3-674D-45BA-88EF-5909D241442F@kenkubota.de> <1792058979427258421.1792058979@vision4d.ai>

Message-ID: <9A71495C-A4E7-48C5-9FA8-F02212C3D28D@kenkubota.de> Hi Rob, In response to your message: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-EI2nE1ztYd8mxY6OM8UD8w2VSs/ If this hypothesis were true, you would need to answer the following questions: 1. Why is former NSA lifetime employee Deb Cooley, now serving as Security Area Director, forcing through a document [1] that deflects Professor Bernstein's concerns [2]? This action appears designed to weaken end-to-end encryption. This is clearly not what "neutral informational documents" entail, as Brian Carpenter claimed [3]. No legitimate standards body would publish technical documentation on vehicles without essential safety features like seatbelts; yet the IETF effectively does so here. 2. Why has Professor Bernstein's input been subjected to arbitrary intervention [4]? There is no legitimate reason for this treatment. His core argument, if I am not mistaken, is that the IETF should not claim the right to modify appeals, a precedent that obviously already exists [5]. If the IETF were genuinely interested in resolving this conflict, it could address it directly; instead, it appears to be acting to undermine Professor Bernstein's efforts to ensure strong cryptography. Professor Bernstein typically argues with clarity and precision, yet his points are being obscured rather than considered. 3. Why does the IETF fail to adhere to commonly accepted conflict-of-interest policies? As noted by Professor Bernstein, the IETF seems unique in its disregard for standard guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. Instead, any mention of a potential conflict of interest is immediately characterized as a personal attack. None of these critical issues have been addressed. Instead, the IETF publishes a document that objectively advances the interests of the NSA. (It is particularly ironic that the Security Area Director enforcing such measures happens to be a former lifetime employee of the NSA. Let us simply note the facts without further commentary.) Kind regards, Ken Kubota ____________________________________________________ Ken Kubota https://doi.org/10.4444/100 [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/8yxxrVX6RZ0DAyJQInEsz6iV694/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/gwJ35jrHgNi0Q-SXamXy__f2f_w/ [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ongtYUoPZkqfKUeKbIq6grRQjLM/ [4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/V67wl1pWaPg40S6ABfBHuwc0oXM/ [5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/gwJ35jrHgNi0Q-SXamXy__f2f_w/ "IETF itself also carries out problematic modifications. For example, in May 2025, IESG posted an IESG-mangled version of an appeal that I had filed, and then in its response confused exactly the point obfuscated by that mangling. When I complained about the mangled document, the IETF Executive Director responded not by apologizing but instead by asserting that IETF management had the power to do whatever it wanted." From ietf at kenkubota.de Thu Oct 15 21:42:15 2026 From: ietf at kenkubota.de (Ken Kubota) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 21:42:15 +0200 Subject: [ISP] Consensus and Transparency In-Reply-To: References: <0FD7B0E3-674D-45BA-88EF-5909D241442F@kenkubota.de> <1792058979427258421.1792058979@vision4d.ai>

<9A71495C-A4E7-48C5-9FA8-F02212C3D28D@kenkubota.de> Message-ID: <68862B7D-476F-4868-97B7-276D80C30156@kenkubota.de> In response to your message from this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p25hQE5OZ97uNbNfDUdPIZqJXZk/ > Perhaps because Dr. Bersteins concerns have been heard and found not to have consensus. Honest people can disagree, and we all lose sometimes. Not everything is a conspiracy. 4. Concerns: Both Professor Bernstein's concerns and mine remain unaddressed. "My objections were never addressed, including by the NSA, which responded to an earlier email from me via NSA employee William Layton: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vFu5iq8gPQFByj4L0hkCEAJUR9I/" [1] 5. Consensus: While the Working Group (WG) Chairs claimed consensus, it was evident that none existed. [1] Furthermore, none of the chairs holding academic positions approved the draft. [1] Professor Bernstein's concerns do not require a consensus among themselves; rather, the *draft* requires a consensus. The distinction is clear: Concerns must be addressed, not merely voted upon for their own sake. 6. Lack of Transparency: Although the WG Chairs explicitly stated that there was 70% approval, they have refused to provide the underlying evidence. [1] This contradicts the IETF's stated commitment to transparency. I have never used the term "conspiracy." "The term "conspiracy theory" is terminology from the field of psychological warfare. Professor Mausfeld (Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Department of Psychology) once stated the famous quote: "Besonders beliebt sind 'Querfront' und 'Verschw?rungstheorie'." [?] The trick is to associate any critique, which aims at the center of power, with something that is socially ostracized, in order to sabotage the criticism. He calls such terms (e.g., "conspiracy theory") "denunciation terms," used to poison the debate. If you need to resort to denunciation terms, you are actually supporting my position." [2] In a fair debate, such terms should be avoided. Are you expressing your personal view, or are you representing an official/semi-official position of Cisco as an employee [3]? What is your proposal to resolve this conflict of interest? "In December 2024, a Cisco employee wrote the following: "There are people whose cryptographic expertise I cannot doubt who say that pure ML-KEM is the right trade-off for them, and more importantly for my employer, that's what they're willing to buy. Hence, Cisco will implement it; I am essentially just asking for code points." Certainly "willing to buy" is a statement about funding, evidently from a source large enough to dictate Cisco actions, evidently from a source asking for non-hybrids, evidently from "people whose cryptographic expertise I cannot doubt"; if that source isn't NSA, who is it?" [4] Kind regards, Ken Kubota ____________________________________________________ Ken Kubota https://doi.org/10.4444/100 [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OrvxKgjrEOMb95KAWoJYSilDxiY/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/Xx0yHcp2-z2A7oiELB-gxzgWs9k/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Richard%20Barnes "Richard Barnes is a Distinguished Engineer in the Collaboration CTO?s office at Cisco." "rlb at ipv.sx" [4] https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251004-weakened.html > Am 15.10.2026 um 17:54 schrieb Richard Barnes : > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 11:01?AM Ken Kubota > wrote: >> >> 1. Why is former NSA lifetime employee Deb Cooley, now serving as Security Area Director, forcing through a document [1] that deflects Professor Bernstein's concerns [2]? > > Perhaps because Dr. Bersteins concerns have been heard and found not to have consensus. Honest people can disagree, and we all lose sometimes. Not everything is a conspiracy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ietf at kenkubota.de Fri Oct 16 01:02:01 2026 From: ietf at kenkubota.de (Ken Kubota) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 01:02:01 +0200 Subject: [ISP] Document Decision vs. Working Group Issues, Conflict of Interest IETF/NSA In-Reply-To: References: <0FD7B0E3-674D-45BA-88EF-5909D241442F@kenkubota.de> <1792058979427258421.1792058979@vision4d.ai>

<9A71495C-A4E7-48C5-9FA8-F02212C3D28D@kenkubota.de> <68862B7D-476F-4868-97B7-276D80C30156@kenkubota.de> Message-ID: <57A10CA9-7685-4E6F-B42B-00ABA6A52EB7@kenkubota.de> In response to your message: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/G3WsjtrcMruuYdws5m-VcBKoOmk This matter concerns not only the specific document in question but also systemic deficiencies within the Working Group. There is no reason why procedural irregularities within a Working Group should not be debated openly and directly within that very group, especially to ensure full transparency. If IETF promises were taken seriously, such discussions should take place freely. It seems that framing criticism within bureaucratic formalities serves as a mechanism to silence dissent within the TLS Working Group (and similarly in the SSH Working Group). Furthermore, the decision-making bodies appear to be dominated by large U.S. corporations whose interests largely align with those of the NSA, suggesting that the outcomes of these decisions are predetermined. This appears to be an established tactic to exhaust the resources and morale of dissenters. The IETF profile page indicates that you currently hold no active roles [1], yet Professor Bernstein notes a reference to a (possibly former) "NSA contractor Eric Rescorla" [2]. Are these comments a reflection of your personal views, or do they represent an official or semi-official stance on behalf of the NSA, given your history as a (possibly former) NSA contractor? How do you propose we address this conflict of interest? Responses typically attempt to deflect attention from the obvious conflict of interest or advocate for the suppression of dissent. To date, I have observed no credible attempts to address this issue within the IETF framework. Kind regards, Ken Kubota ____________________________________________________ Ken Kubota https://doi.org/10.4444/100 [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Eric%20Rescorla "Eric does not currently have any active roles." [2] https://blog.cr.yp.to/20260702-standard.html