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

Re: "do hash" unnecessary?

To: spki@c2.net
Subject: Re: "do hash" unnecessary?
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 10:26:51 -0500
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:31:19 PST." <199804010531.VAA02266@s20.term1.sb.rain.org>
Sender: owner-spki@c2.net


>>>>> "Hal" == Hal Finney <hal@rain.org> writes:
    Hal> I wonder if this is really necessary.  How hard would it be
    Hal> for the verifier to hash everything it sees in the sequence?
    Hal> How long are sequences likely to be?  I wouldn't think they

  I agree that it may be unnecessary. I'd like to leave it there in
the spec until we have more experience.

]     Network Security Consulting and Contract Programming      |  SSH IPsec  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |international[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |strong crypto[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

Follow-Ups:

Re: "do hash" unnecessary?

From: Carl Ellison <cme@Cybercash.COM>

References:

"do hash" unnecessary?

From: Hal Finney <hal@rain.org>

Prev by Date: Re: acceptance&commitments over trust
Next by Date: slides from WG meeting, 31 Mar 98
Prev by thread: "do hash" unnecessary?
Next by thread: Re: "do hash" unnecessary?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread