The following came from D. Farber who is closely associated with NSF Internet commitees and has been following Clipper development, as received from an anonymous informant. Items: 1. list of Clipper committee members 2. more NIST irregularities around DSS 3. Clipper: low yield, average failure in 40 hours, `substantial redesign', delayed up to a year? If anyone forwards this past cypherpunks (e.g. Usenet) take out my and D. Farber names. ===cut=here== From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber) Subject: technical review of the Slipjack algorithm Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 16:42:24 -0500 In case anyone hasn'y picked this up yet, this is the list of individuals who are participating in the technical review of the Slipjack algorithm: Dorothy Denning, Georgetown U. Walt Tubman, IBM (retired) Ernie Brickell, Sandia Labs Steve Kent, BBN Dave Mayer, AT&T According to Lynn McNulty (NIST), the group met for a few days last week with NIST and NSA representatives. They are now in the process of formulating more questions for a second meeting with the government team. No word yet on the form, content or schedule of the group's report. From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber) Subject: "Digital Signature Scandal" a bit more Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 16:40:57 -0500 During a discussion in DC today the following arose. The Federal register announcement was dated and signed on 2 June 1993 (and published on 8 June). The NIST Advisory Board mandated by the congress was meeting at NIST on 2-5 June. They were not told about the announcement even though the matter was of direct interest and importance to their assigned task. Why??? Did someone have something to hide? I hear tell also that the Clipper chip's first run of final silicon was not a winner. Chips failed after 40 hours. I also heard a rumor that the redo would [delay] things for up to a year (sounds like a long time). Any better info out there? Dave "Informant" [forwarded by D. Farber]: "My info is that there were three parallel tests; your number comes from the first, though the others were little better. Batch I n=8 mtbf= 41.5 hrs. Batch II n=11 mtbf= 49.0 hrs. Batch III n=20 mtbf= 32.0 hrs. My NSA source said that he thought that the difficulty was related to thermal issues and that if environmental issues were addressed or at least audit ed to assure proper operating environment the numbers might have been better. I have been unable to get any 'hard' info re what actually happened and what kind of a post mortem is taking place." 2. Re chip health. I heard the same story plus yield was very low. I also understand that there is substantial redesign going on because the story about defaulting to an all-0 key if the LEB were corrupted was apparently true.