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

Re: MD5 versus SHA

To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: MD5 versus SHA
From: bound@zk3.dec.com
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 00:13:23 -0500
Cc: touch@ISI.EDU, smb@research.att.com, atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil, ipsec@ans.net, bound@zk3.dec.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Mar 95 20:23:12 +0500." <199503290126.AA34149@interlock.ans.net>


>If we want ubiquitous security, we have to deploy a defult
>authentication option.

Well we are only going to attempt 'proposed standard' and I hope we get
prototypes up to test the default.  It could be that in 4 months we have
a new and faster default.  

Speaking of prototypes.  How many folks out there could be ready for an
interoperability test fest say July before Stockholm IETF with IPv6
implementations (meaning your kernel can do Rans architecture)?  This
implies you have done a lot of other IPv6 work at the API and the
kernel including IPv6 system discovery to even talk to the other IPv6
nodes on the LAN. I guess we could tunnel the packets.

I guess we would all have to agree on the key mangement even manual?

I would like to use in-band (just kidding).  But seriously could we use 
kerberos for such a fest?

Do we need a Security API Spec for this testing?

/jim

Follow-Ups:

Re: MD5 versus SHA

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>

References:

Re: MD5 versus SHA

From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU>

Prev by Date: A Modest Proposal
Next by Date: Re: A Modest Proposal (for a MD5 replacement)
Prev by thread: Re: A Modest Proposal
Next by thread: Re: MD5 versus SHA
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread