IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] RFC 5742 conflict review for draft-dolmatov-kuznyechik

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479421B30D9 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:25:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OM8IELzcFp22 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22b.google.com (mail-yw0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8A211B3096 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id q190so36438980ywd.3 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:25:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j8KuT7d5ZvWIydv7K2gfv7d/KIpFftk2enuLc0bslZA=; b=J6EMb1LRJq000krV2xd6hWpubU4OZ+4CLLts2q19QfDM6p3NAD3an35DjgjnygTBmp Jb5q59lbYQQQy/a6yA19hprmUHeFGgMON8cRrVBLwnJNhmNznHxPbQRUdlsMTov4hNPu IlBeWxh0DvGhEwhSqksHxx6dZelg54sVm96AEqn4HoWNXRUEaW8/jTlRbeR9jJH4KJ0e B5iaMeyAuRABWz99JqKYJB4VGyCJaqT2pTAaqf5hCSsSJWyaIS2LtCsYc3FVrrO6tLCZ aHes+wTdDtC7RR4m3XVjN2LElSmrDxM26nIh7/hCfILqiHmXgSGI0ROAVlbajsCaNoPV MbdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=j8KuT7d5ZvWIydv7K2gfv7d/KIpFftk2enuLc0bslZA=; b=Ew98xm871s7Yg1XEAevqIUjedQF4dAcCRZP+75M6MmsfQ9V0wvuWa0ilfY3qCnuU3P qkBjznf0uZVs4n2HcYpgs++VongHyAmG0hjRvn2c2yCpBAxB3ZJlLDXE1zYVeUqGLo4B RTwlLHvgwC35uxKllpnY9OwajuXbuewVbCTak9iaJ+ybHGEVlmnHh0S80wknufg/1Chs cFMqisLLF8GmeiAjZmHmMcnb9M0tRQc5KN8GAVKCSTlOhp4TQr7yTCT1834t+eUgUNMz LEBT1qIBMSBgz0h4S3YVO/fL4OZKyqJJ5WHavwQJYsNBz4zsBaZizolFuHK5HM+JOB8h vPIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORmQhqmPKVz1WEViKz7aMe3QJxHjg/3T8e0xleGCXF8qc5n0e7BdIDbwoZUD8SGRJnRWyPCW0UDYv5Siw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.226.198 with SMTP id l189mr5645828ywe.239.1454624712236; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.13.216.138 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:25:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.13.216.138 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:25:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ff3c1ab0eaa94bc497001720b8dd5351@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <4A631584-C0F1-4AFC-A51D-155C34415413@isode.com> <D2D64C5B.61B8F%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk> <CADqLbz+b-YQ10d6d5_GHN+r7ETWobQgq+skPyXQSdUGG1dBDqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0c=ErkJLja7QUbA06V7vH-KPR_MpTcPhPyrKfyV02bxq-w@mail.gmail.com> <D2D65F65.266E2%uri@ll.mit.edu> <87a8nix2od.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <D2D68F83.26762%uri@ll.mit.edu> <871t8uw0sb.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <D2D78DD6.2680E%uri@ll.mit.edu> <b0a5edfea0df3670d5526d488dc731d1.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <CACsn0c=OcJP6jzne9hHp67U6ZVpBssK1y=4zu1UW8+V=brUF0w@mail.gmail.com> <ff3c1ab0eaa94bc497001720b8dd5351@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:25:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0cmH5_uWwxS2Bi87nPT=aK4vHnXvrcG7iTM=zcyP8UrZ-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fc5804123d4052af935f2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/6xL6p8K1daCtH6dBkCLKd8Sc_3I>
Cc: cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] RFC 5742 conflict review for draft-dolmatov-kuznyechik
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 22:25:14 -0000

On Feb 4, 2016 11:07 AM, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>
> > We got very badly bitten by making experimental RFCs for MD5 and RC4.
>
> Travel back in time to when this happened.  What alternatives where there?

3DES and SHA-1.
>
> We got good use out of those two mechanisms.

Both were broken in the same year as their introduction: the initial byte
bias of RC4 was immediate, and collisions in the MD5 collision function not
long after.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email