[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: weak devices

To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: weak devices
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 22:56:56 +0500
Address: 1 Amherst St., Cambridge, MA 02139
Cc: karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org, hugo@watson.ibm.com, IPSEC@ans.net
In-Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com's message of Tue, 10 Jan 1995 19:18:58 -0500 (EST),<9501110018.AA22337@buoy.watson.ibm.com>
Phone: (617) 253-8091

   From: uri@watson.ibm.com
   Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 19:18:58 -0500 (EST)

   Phil Karn says:
   > >Phil, how well are these devices equipped to do modular exponentiations
   > >as required for the mechanisms we discuss?
   >
   > Not very well, I'm afraid. But if you want the ultimate in security,
   > you want to use a trusted machine even if it's slower than something
   > else.

   OK, then why were we discussing how fast or slow MD5 is on those
   trusted but underpowered machines?

Because you only have to do the mdoular exponentiations once (or
relatively rarely), so you can afford to wait for it to complete?

						- Ted

References:

Re: weak devices

From: uri@watson.ibm.com

Prev by Date: Re: MD5 performance limitations document
Next by Date: Re: weak devices
Prev by thread: Re: weak devices
Next by thread: Re: weak devices
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread