Alexander, Thank you, but this isn't the correct way to report this. You sent it to [email protected], which is a general discussion list with 1,820 subscribers, and [email protected] which will have some additional people.
For errata please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-report/ and consider if it meets that criterion (i.e. would have been considered an error at the time the RFC was published). Please also consider https://www.ietf.org/process/rfcs/vulnerabilities/. I hope that helps. Chris Box (One of the moderators of the IETF list) On Thu, 8 May 2025 at 23:10, <[email protected]> wrote: > # IETF Submission – RFC 4269 Related Errata + Supplementary Observation > (May 2025) > > To: [email protected] > From: Alexander C. (Fragle Systems) > Subject: Submission – RFC 4269 (SEED Algorithm) – Suspected Anomalies + > Related Observations > > --- > > ## Submission Overview > > This ZIP archive includes evidence and observations related to potential > irregularities and broader telemetry implications involving the SEED > encryption algorithm as described in RFC 4269. > > Two documents are included that may constitute **errata triggers**: > - Observed firmware behavior that mirrors elements from RFC 4269 cipher > routines > - System interactions that suggest algorithmic presence in non-declared > cryptographic implementations > > Supporting files show: > - Firmware persistence > - Network trace anomalies > - Credential traces and packet-related activity > - Device behavior consistent with undocumented cryptographic presence > > --- > > ## Structure > > - `draft-list.csv`, `rfc4269.txt.pdf` – reference tracking and RFC material > - `Firmware_Exploitation_Incident_Report_UPDATED*.pdf` – main incident > narratives > - `supplementary_evidence/` – categorized traces, screenshots, log > fragments > > --- > > ## Purpose > > This submission is intended to: > - Notify IETF of suspected behavior that may intersect with or trigger > errata to RFC 4269 > - Provide organized evidence for analysis > > I appreciate confirmation of receipt and would be grateful if you could > let me know: > > - Whether the submission was received intact (attachments opened > successfully) > - If any procedural steps are required for tracking or logging this as a > potential RFC 4269 errata-related observation > - Whether follow-up contact or clarification is needed regarding any > portion of the material > > All data is collected via isolated, offline analysis with full consent of > device owner(s). > > Please advise on procedural next steps. > > Thank you for your time and attention. > > Kind regards, > Alexander Kristoffersen > aka “almao” / “invisiblepancake”
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
