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

Re: Padding

To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Padding
From: Derrell Piper <piper@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:31:59 -0700
cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:22:49 EDT." <v03102804afeaf31308aa@[128.89.27.159]>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Unless the padding is random, I see little difference between padding with
zero and padding with a monitonically incrementing constant.  If there are 
cryptographic concerns, they're both equivalent, aren't they?

While I understand the covert channel argument (being, in a past life, a
VSA for a C2 and B1 TCSEC OS), that's not really one of our (unwritten)
design criteria.  Covert channel analysis is way beyond the charter of 
this working group.

Unless there are strong cryptographic reasons for choosing pseudorandom
pads, I would prefer to see it be zero.

Derrell

References:

Re: Padding

From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

Prev by Date: Fast x86 DES for SSH
Next by Date: Security Association vis a vis Security Parameters Index
Prev by thread: Re: Padding
Next by thread: RE: Padding
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread