74
T. Ashur and A. Luykx
Subcommittee 27 (SC 27) which is responsible for information and IT security.
Within SC 27, the standard is edited by Working Group 2 (SC 27/WG 2) which
is responsible for cryptography and security mechanisms. ISO/IEC 29192 itself is
a multipart standard dealing with lightweight cryptography and Part 2 deals with
Block ciphers.
The standardization process of Simon and Speck was improper from the outset.
It involved premature submission of the algorithms, assignment of the Simon and
Speck designers as the project editors, using erroneous procedures to promote the
algorithms, refusal to respond to technical questions and a generally adversarial
approach towards the process. For brevity, we describe in the sequel the timeline of
the standardization process starting from the initial study period and until the project
was finally canceled.
Mexico City, Mexico (October 2014)
The idea to include Simon and Speck as part of ISO/IEC 29192-2 was formally
launched in the WG 2. A Study Period (SP) was initiated in November 2014 and
there was a Call for Contributions for a period of 18 weeks.
Kuching, Malaysia (April 2015)
The responses in the study period were registered. Responses from 4 NBs were
received: two supporting the standardization (Russia and the US) and two objecting
(Norway and Germany). A presentation was given by Doug Shors discussing the
comments submitted by the NBs. 6
The meeting report indicates that a discussion was held about some of the
submitted comments, resulting in a compromise which extended the study period
by 6 months to request further input on the algorithms’ security, while also allowing
a Preliminary Working Draft (PWD) to be circulated in parallel. Interestingly, the
most critical question in the Study Period, Question 1, “Should SIMON and SPECK
be included in ISO/IEC 29192-2?” is not addressed in the meeting report despite
negative responses from some NBs. It is this meeting summary that would later
be used by the editors to argue that a decision to include Simon and Speck in
ISO/IEC 29192-2 had already been made and could not be contested anymore.
The new Call for Contributions and the Preliminary Working Draft were
circulated in May 2015 and June 2015, respectively. At this point, the new CfC no
longer included any question of whether Simon and Speck should be standardized,
suggesting that the NSA had already decided by then to act in a way that was
adversarial to the process.
Jaipur, India (October 2015)
The circulation of the extended CfC following the previous meeting resulted in
several experts’ comments. About half of the experts commented that the security
6 Doug Shors and Louis Wingers are two NSA employees listed as part of Simon and Speck’s
design team. They were assigned as co-rapporteurs for this study period, and later as co-editors of
the project.
T. Ashur and A. Luykx
Subcommittee 27 (SC 27) which is responsible for information and IT security.
Within SC 27, the standard is edited by Working Group 2 (SC 27/WG 2) which
is responsible for cryptography and security mechanisms. ISO/IEC 29192 itself is
a multipart standard dealing with lightweight cryptography and Part 2 deals with
Block ciphers.
The standardization process of Simon and Speck was improper from the outset.
It involved premature submission of the algorithms, assignment of the Simon and
Speck designers as the project editors, using erroneous procedures to promote the
algorithms, refusal to respond to technical questions and a generally adversarial
approach towards the process. For brevity, we describe in the sequel the timeline of
the standardization process starting from the initial study period and until the project
was finally canceled.
Mexico City, Mexico (October 2014)
The idea to include Simon and Speck as part of ISO/IEC 29192-2 was formally
launched in the WG 2. A Study Period (SP) was initiated in November 2014 and
there was a Call for Contributions for a period of 18 weeks.
Kuching, Malaysia (April 2015)
The responses in the study period were registered. Responses from 4 NBs were
received: two supporting the standardization (Russia and the US) and two objecting
(Norway and Germany). A presentation was given by Doug Shors discussing the
comments submitted by the NBs. 6
The meeting report indicates that a discussion was held about some of the
submitted comments, resulting in a compromise which extended the study period
by 6 months to request further input on the algorithms’ security, while also allowing
a Preliminary Working Draft (PWD) to be circulated in parallel. Interestingly, the
most critical question in the Study Period, Question 1, “Should SIMON and SPECK
be included in ISO/IEC 29192-2?” is not addressed in the meeting report despite
negative responses from some NBs. It is this meeting summary that would later
be used by the editors to argue that a decision to include Simon and Speck in
ISO/IEC 29192-2 had already been made and could not be contested anymore.
The new Call for Contributions and the Preliminary Working Draft were
circulated in May 2015 and June 2015, respectively. At this point, the new CfC no
longer included any question of whether Simon and Speck should be standardized,
suggesting that the NSA had already decided by then to act in a way that was
adversarial to the process.
Jaipur, India (October 2015)
The circulation of the extended CfC following the previous meeting resulted in
several experts’ comments. About half of the experts commented that the security
6 Doug Shors and Louis Wingers are two NSA employees listed as part of Simon and Speck’s
design team. They were assigned as co-rapporteurs for this study period, and later as co-editors of
the project.