Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | galadran's commentslogin

This is garbage from start to finish.

There are already codepoints assigned for MLKEM 512/768/1024 (0x0200, 0x0201, 0x0202) and nearly every major library supports it already:

  - OpenSSL (ML-KEM-512/768/1024)
  - BoringSSL (ML-KEM-1024)
  - NSS (ML-KEM-1024)
  - AWS-LC (ML-KEM-512/768/1024)
  - Rustls (ML-KEM-768/1024)
  - s2n-tls (ML-KEM-1024)
  - Bouncy Castle (ML-KEM-512/768/1024)
  - Botan (ML-KEM-512/768/1024)
  - GnuTLS (ML-KEM-768/1024)
  - WolfSSL (ML-KEM-512/768/1024)


What you say has nothing to do with TFA, which is not about ML-KEM but about the session key establishment protocol used in TLS, in which ML-KEM is just a component.

DJB supports the use of ML-KEM in TLS, but he correctly says that using only ML-KEM is unwise, because absolutely nobody can guarantee that no method to break ML-KEM will be discovered in the next years, as it already happened with the algorithm that was preferred before ML-KEM, until it was broken a few years ago.


I'm afraid you've misunderstood. These codepoints are for the pure MLKEM key establishment that DJB is railing against.

All of these libraries also support the hybrid forms, which have different codepoints and are used by default. Nothing in the IETF process has any bearing on this.


Does the specification recommend using a hybrid? At the level of at least SHOULD if not MUST, in the sense of RFC 2119? I have the opposite impression but haven't checked.


In effect, yes it does.

The Recommended flag is set for X25519MLKEM768. It is not set for any of the pure PQ key exchanges.

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-paramete...


> DJB supports the use of ML-KEM in TLS, but he correctly says that using only ML-KEM is unwise

Then don't use it if you don't want to? Use hybrid? ML-KEM (CRYSTALS-Kyber) is a NIST standard, FIPS 203:

* https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/fips/203/final

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML-KEM

There's also HQC, FIPS 207:

* https://csrc.nist.gov/presentations/2025/fips-207-hqc-kem

Unless you're doing government work, there's no reason why you'd be force to use Officially Approved™ algorithms:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_National_Security_A...

If the (US) government wants to use (allegedly) compromised algorithms with-in itself that's up to them. The rest of us can use whatever we want.


> If nothing changes, users will increasingly be forced to choose between their privacy and their access to the web

Shorter post: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/privacy-security/keeping-the-web...



EU Commission FAQ (emphasis mine):

Recognition means that web browsers are required to ensure support and interoperability for the QWAC for the sole purpose of displaying identity data in a user-friendly manner. *Recognition of QWACs implies that browsers shouldn't question the origin, integrity or data in the certificate*.

However, the requirement to recognise QWACs does not affect browser security policies and leaves web browsers free to preserve their own procedures and criteria for encryption and authentication of *other certificates*.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_...


> Recognition of QWACs implies that browsers shouldn't question the origin, integrity or data in the certificate.

Apart from checking the certificate chain and revocation lists, isn't that what browsers do?


As I commented there, you've misunderstood this change.

There's a difference between certificates distributed with the OS and certificates added to the OS by a user. Right now Firefox ignores both.

This change ONLY picks up the certificates added to the OS by a user. Firefox will continue to ignore the certificates included with the OS store by default.


Literally in the bugzilla entry is stated either by user or administrator so either you misunderstood or you need to raise this directly to the bug for correction

EDIT: for clarity, something I should have done from the beginning, I checked the affected code, they clearly remove warnings around security.enterprise_roots.enabled preference and enable it by default. This is the preference that was added back in the day to control if the browser will allow root certificates added to the OS no matter the source (user or system context) and now they change it to true by default. I think this provides more clarity but feel free to search the affected code for references that indicate that only part of the root certificate store is trusted


Late so don't if you will see this, but from the very beginning, the security.enterprise_roots.enabled preference always stated it applied to certificates added, not those included by default, eg [0]. System vs User context is still different from baked-in vs added. On macOS for example the System keychain contains certificates added that are then accessible by all users and can only be added by an Administrator, and the separate System Roots keychain holds the root certificates (151 on the Mac I'm sitting in front of) that Apple ships with the OS. Firefox reading from both the "login" and "System" keychains doesn't mean reading from "System Roots". The suggested release notes for the bug report you linked reinforces this [1] (capitalization emphasis added):

>[Suggested wording]: By default, Firefox will now use TLS trust anchors (e.g., certificates) ADDED to the operating system by the user or an administrator. This works on Windows, macOS, and Android, and it can be turned off in the "Privacy & Security" section of Firefox settings, under "Certificates".

If you think all of these descriptions have been wrong all along from the code, that'd definitely be worth bringing up on Bugzilla. Personally I'm happy to have it enabled by default vs always needing to remember to do so if it's working as described. I think support for one's own CAs should be encouraged even the overall UX around running your own CA is mediocre right now.

----

0: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-disable-enterprise-... :

>"Mozilla has added an Enterprise Roots preference to Firefox as a solution to the problem. This preference can be used to import any root certificate authorities (CAs) that have been added to the operating system, to resolve your TLS connection error. You can determine if a website is relying on an imported root certificate by clicking the Site Information icon in the address bar."

1: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1848815


"Agreed behind closed doors" would probably be better than "Secret Law" but I guess its a question of brevity.



https://eidas-open-letter.org

The open letter signed by 300+ researchers, professors and experts.


Title should probably be: "Last Chance to fix eIDAS: Secret EU law threatens Internet security"


The Secret Law bit is quite clickbaity.



Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: