Re: [Cfrg] What crypto algorithm is referenced most in RFCs?

[Joachim Strömbergson <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aloha!

On 2011:06:13 16:04, David McGrew wrote:
> That last page can be used to answer the question in the subject line. 
> (Hint: it is not something most of us probably recommend anymore.)

I was amazed that there were so many of those drafts that are in
standards track. Drafts in informational track describing uses of
insecure algorithms is imho ok, since they document a practice.
Similarly, RFCs are a done deal and if they are a standard RFC must be
replaced by newer RFCs to fix security issues.

But in 2011 writing a draft for standards track that includes known
insecure, broken algorithms?

Would it be fruitful to browse the list try and identify the most
pressing cases and try to convince the authors that they should mend
their ways?

- -- 
Med vänlig hälsning, Yours

Joachim Strömbergson - Alltid i harmonisk svängning.
========================================================================
Kryptoblog - IT-säkerhet på svenska
http://www.strombergson.com/kryptoblog
========================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk32/K0ACgkQZoPr8HT30QF7lACfSUrUM2Ue5RDfK9CZ7379LaSS
mn4AnRgV7Q37ZaUfwm4gzGdODQOMFwOa
=vQLC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----