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

*To*: "Sandy Harris" <sandy@storm.ca>, <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>*Subject*: Re: DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange*From*: "Khaja E. Ahmed" <khaja.ahmed@home.com>*Date*: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:01:35 -0800*References*: <200011301051.FAA25467@ietf.org> <005301c05bb5$d65a1550$e4570f18@plstn1.sfba.home.com> <3A27FB70.64CAD963@storm.ca> <015d01c05ddd$0273c130$e4570f18@plstn1.sfba.home.com> <3A2BCC33.7E21539F@storm.ca>*Sender*: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Thanks again Sandy for the very useful pointers. I do wonder though... In a situation where one or both parties of a key exchange session has (have) an RSA public key certificate what is the advantage of using DH to exchange keys and then using RSA to authenticate the party? Why not do what happens in SSL / TLS? Use the RSA public key to exchange the symmetric key. Is one approach computationally more efficient than the other? Clearly IKE does not support use of RSA to do key exchange today. Is there a reason why this was not implemented / supported in IKE? Is this a useful thing to explore? Would there be any advantage to allowing / supporting both methods of exchanging keys? Khaja

**Re: DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange***From*: Scott Fluhrer <sfluhrer@cisco.com>**Re: DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange***From*: Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il>

**DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange***From*: "Khaja E. Ahmed" <khaja.ahmed@home.com>**Re: DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange***From*: Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>**Re: DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange***From*: "Khaja E. Ahmed" <khaja.ahmed@home.com>**Re: DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange***From*: Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange** - Next by Date:
**IPSEC Agenda Topics** - Prev by thread:
**Re: DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange** - Next by thread:
**Re: DH vs. RSA use for symmetric key exchange** - Index(es):