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

Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-02.txt

To: Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com>, sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-02.txt
From: Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:59:51 -0500
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <9803171545.AA14418@kona.>; from Paul Koning on Tue, Mar 17, 1998 at 10:45:07AM -0500
Mail-Followup-To: Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com>,sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us, ipsec@tis.com
References: <199803161942.OAA24677@dcl.MIT.EDU> <199803162310.XAA28809@orchard.arlington.ma.us> <9803171545.AA14418@kona.>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com> wrote:
> This is a very simple case of designing a protocol for extensibility.

Hmm.. speaking of weak keys, I've not figured out what to do if all keys
become weak.

[Of course, the protocol will have to be updated, but other than lying
about my public key in some site-site pre-arranged manner, I don't see
any natural avenues of approach.]

[[And, lest someone start quoting the age of the universe at me, I'm
worried about the risk of massively parallel attacks: do we just scrap
the whole system if someone builds a 128 bit quantum computer?]]

[[[I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, and don't want to
see this derail anything.  If there's a reference on the subject,
just point me at it?]]]

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

References:

Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-02.txt

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

Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-02.txt

From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>

Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-02.txt

From: Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com>

Prev by Date: Is there any order?
Next by Date: Re: What's the diff ?
Prev by thread: Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-02.txt
Next by thread: ISAKMP-09 Changes
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread