On 01/03/2014 01:15 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/03/2014 11:01 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
i was just blew away by this: "What almost all commentators have missed is that hidden away in the small print (and subsequently confirmed by our specific query) is that if you want to be FIPS 140-2 compliant you MUST use the compromised points."
i even don't have words to comment on this!!!
I tweeted about this exact point a few minutes ago; given the way and what is compromised in what manner, and then work back to what FIPS is, it helps dilute the shock. a bit. but then who's got the funds and resources to re-work the fips process with a new codebase ? Will Red Hat ?
at this point i am thinking: why bother (with re-certification)? because of this (among other things) the trust in "fips process" or other "official" processes is in free fall.. IMHO underlying problem is not that a cipher/process/code was compromised but that the supervising _trustworthy_ entity is in fact not trustworthy at all!
Adrian