Re: Calling the question: implicit vs. explicit IV

[Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I support explicit IV's.  The only point I would add to Ted's summary 
is that there is evidence that in some situations it is beneficial if 
not necessary for the IV to be explicitly present in the packet due 
to hardware of other crypto tool requirements.

At 02:01 AM 8/1/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Bob and I would like to call the question regarding implicit
>vs. explicit IV's.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBM+GwcYwpVk/gvJfqEQLKogCguNeigXGRw9IvN7seyMyNttI99EIAoJ7Z
fEJZl/cVKv0FnUsQwBWHweFO
=EFf1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

References:

• Calling the question: implicit vs. explicit IV
• From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>

---

• Prev by Date: Calling the question: implicit vs. explicit IV
• Next by Date: comments on the new DOI
• Prev by thread: Calling the question: implicit vs. explicit IV
• Next by thread: Re: Calling the question: implicit vs. explicit IV
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread