[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Two AES encryption modes?
This is the type of problem that named ciphersuites will solve. I've been
thinking a bit about the semantics of this, and I think we could come up
with a pretty good naming scheme of the form <organization> <common name>
<year>.
E.g.:
IETF-ipsec high security '02 (chosen by WG, published in an RFC)
US DoD FIPS standard '02 (chosen by a large customer, listed as a
requirement)
VPNC default '02 (chosen by a vendor consortium, published on their
website)
JoeBillyBob JBB's ciphersuite '02 (chosen by an individual, distributed to
his friends)
Andrew
-------------------------------------------
There are no rules, only regulations. Luckily,
history has shown that with time, hard work,
and lots of love, anyone can be a technocrat.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> [mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:22 AM
> To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Re: Two AES encryption modes?
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
> >>>>> "VPNC" == VPNC <Paul> writes:
> VPNC> At 8:08 AM -0400 7/24/02, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts
> >> directories.
> >> This draft is a work item of the IP Security Protocol
> Working Group
> >> of the IETF.
> >>
> >> Title : Using AES Counter Mode With IPsec ESP
> >> Author(s) : R. Housley
> >> Filename : draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-aes-ctr-00.txt
> >> Pages : 12
> >> Date : 23-Jul-02
>
> VPNC> There are technical reasons why this WG might or
> might not want to
> VPNC> have more than one AES encryption modes. I would
> like to bring up a
> VPNC> non-technical reason why we wouldn't: interoperability.
>
> VPNC> System A is marketed as doing AES. System B is
> marketed as doing AES.
> VPNC> They won't interoperate unless they both do the
> same modes. Yes, we
> VPNC> could demand that the users understand that "AES
> CBC" and "AES
> VPNC> Counter" are different, and that when they hear
> "AES" they need to
> VPNC> ask "which of the two AES modes do you mean"? That
> is a wholly
> VPNC> unrealistic demand.
>
> One solution is to make up two new names for them, neither
> of which is "AES".
> This is a marketing solution to a marketing problem.
>
> VPNC> Without a really, really strong security
> justification, the loss of
> VPNC> understandable interoperability that comes with two
> VPNC> different-but-similarly-named algorithms is not worth it.
>
> Fix the names.
>
> I propose "Ted" and "Barbara" as the new working names.
> They can fight over
> which one is more secure.
>
> ] Internet Security. Have encryption, will travel
> |1 Fish/2 Fish [
> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON
> |Red F./Blow F [
> ]mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
> http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |strong crypto [
> ] At the far end of some dark fiber - wait that's dirt!
> |for everyone [
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Finger me for keys
>
> iQCVAwUBPUAXZYqHRg3pndX9AQHV5wP+ON/nBgehwk9btwl+cF4RZkwU7qmhXr/2
> 79fMKOkgkSHqZWk+A/iMuh93cZZWck70Fl+nttN27f3p6BPFYFU0xB12VCxZozfJ
> FyKIva+EkqJGG97/gEmDloHYrt109dG+JBaOgksc2XpE0xcNE38AIVA8I3wOR9r4
> PA2UDLjn2q0=
> =qqDW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>