IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Mon, 01 February 2016 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=18391cd231=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 3D2D81B3228 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 08:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 G1Cj11WKPqYJ for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 08:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from llmx2.ll.mit.edu (LLMX2.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AF41B321F for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 08:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local) by llmx2.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id u11Ga4U6002029 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:36:11 -0500
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] RFC 5742 conflict review for draft-dolmatov-kuznyechik
Thread-Index: AQHRW53KbsNeEPsm8UW9VpkHszoW7Z8XLH85gABX5ID//8M3IYAADj7mgAAN+eyAAAIvgA==
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 16:36:02 +0000
Message-ID: <D2D4F232.264EC%uri@ll.mit.edu>
References: <4A631584-C0F1-4AFC-A51D-155C34415413@isode.com> <87io28y3v7.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <8b4d37ef9b8f4be7877ecc0164c57b8e@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <877fioxzdm.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <4F5E9D3626FF4E5DA34F8944BE0C16B5@buildpc> <87k2mowg47.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
In-Reply-To: <87k2mowg47.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.9.151119
x-originating-ip: [172.25.177.51]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha256"; boundary="B_3537171353_128825810"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-02-01_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=inbound_notspam policy=inbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1601100000 definitions=main-1602010272
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/GCo1Od6aujUIsUlWtrk8vAuckG0>
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: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 16:36:26 -0000

On 2/1/16, 11:27 , "Cfrg on behalf of Simon Josefsson"
<cfrg-bounces@irtf.org on behalf of simon@josefsson.org> wrote:

>I recall seeing implementations that preferred Camellia over AES when
>both were
>available, which I suspect was due to misunderstanding or mistake.

Can you imagine an organization or a business that is bound by a policy
requiring use of a certain cipher in preference over other ciphers?

And I’m not talking about paranoids, for who the mere fact that NSA is OK
with AES implies that there’s something wrong with it. :-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email