Re: Human I&A, IPsec, and their non-relationship

[uri@watson.ibm.com]

Hilarie Orman says:
> The motivation for per-user keying based on chosen plaintext seems
> unconvincing to me.  The amount of data sent per key can be controlled
> by the OS, and adjusted to a conservative value based on the algorithm
> in use.  Wouldn't it be cheaper and safer to rekey host-host
> connections than to negotiate and rekey many user/host keys?

Oh yes! Not only cheaper, but *simpler*! And I think, KISS ideology
saved more than one life (:-).
--
Regards,
Uri         uri@watson.ibm.com      N2RIU
-----------
<Disclamer>

---

Follow-Ups:

• Proposal: user-keys are implementation decision
• From: " " <amir@watson.ibm.com>
• Re: Human I&A, IPsec, and their non-relationship
• From: Phil Karn <karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org>

References:

• Re: Human I&A, IPsec, and their non-relationship
• From: Hilarie Orman <ho@cs.arizona.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Human I&A, IPsec, and their non-relationship
• Next by Date: Known Key attack references (note from Yacov Yacobi)
• Next by thread: Re: IPSEC at Dec IETF
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread