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

Re: A pothole in ISAKMP/Oakley

To: saiz@gc.ssr.upm.es ("LUIS SAIZ GIMENO")
Subject: Re: A pothole in ISAKMP/Oakley
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:24:43 -0400
Address: 1 Amherst St., Cambridge, MA 02139
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: "LUIS SAIZ GIMENO"'s message of Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:39:11 +0200,<199704161839.AA09834@orfeo.gc.ssr.upm.es>
Phone: (617) 253-8091
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

   Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:39:11 +0200
   From: saiz@gc.ssr.upm.es ("LUIS SAIZ GIMENO")

   Non-monotonically doesn't implies (strong)pseudorandomness. Must we
   check for randomness too?

No, but it's an easy check to prevent really bad implementations.  Yes,
it's easy enough to pass that check without doing it with good random
number generator... but see my question about what level of
stupidity/hostility are we expecting from our implementors?

						- Ted

References:

Re: A pothole in ISAKMP/Oakley

From: saiz@gc.ssr.upm.es ("LUIS SAIZ GIMENO")

Prev by Date: Re: A pothole in ISAKMP/Oakley
Next by Date: Small subgroups and ISAKMP/Oakley
Prev by thread: Re: A pothole in ISAKMP/Oakley
Next by thread: Predictable SPIs (was: Re: A pothole in ISAKMP/Oakley)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread