I'm ambivalent about the article title and intro (**not** the research) here:
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/02/rpki_immaturity_study/
The scare words initially imply a "moving from no BGP security to some BGP security is problematic because BGP security implementations have bugs" position.
No one is making a "moving from HTTP to HTTPS is problematic because HTTPS implementations have bugs" argument.
Only in the last paragraph do we get to what the authors actually say:
"Did the White House push for the adoption of an immature technology, potentially doing more harm than good?" ... ["probably not" statements] ... "The roadmap of the White House is a huge leap for RPKI, and therefore also for internet routing, to truly mature and meet the expectations of security, reliability, and scalability for production-level deployments across the global internet."
Was it a good question to ask? Yes. Did El Reg frame it that way? No. Was this probably for clicks? Yeah. Did it make a bunch of people temporarily confused about RPKI? Probably. 😐
Royce Williams
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.