Now is pretty clear, Randy is The Mole !!!! ROFL -J
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Eugen Leitl <eu...@leitl.org> wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from Gregory Perry <gregory.pe...@govirtual.tv> > ----- > > Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 21:14:47 +0000 > From: Gregory Perry <gregory.pe...@govirtual.tv> > To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hal...@gmail.com> > Cc: "cryptogra...@metzdowd.com" <cryptogra...@metzdowd.com>, ianG < > i...@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 > cryptogra...@metzdowd.com > http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > > ----- 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 > >
