Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fast either

Cedric Vivier <cedricv@neonux.com> Wed, 12 January 2011 15:57 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=Xhj0SO5WWBmAN+H+IXqjwOpCv+TFemJLfaRNhakFWjMg+5RIfvtDjL3jOLMfuclkOs ygOxQPcivW8e7m5Jw50T003r8VTULWXh8Ckk0y0l2iCKzxqlDC8wgCBtdsO5QD/vBUr4 ybmO2egZbAslrHNxpfoYeCtxa6837l1Ui7jF8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: neonux@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20110112094147.GB24790@1wt.eu>
References: <20110110000908.GD5743@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=LBeH6RReypRb1BoH=2-jw-_qxRsaqQCT13MNA@mail.gmail.com> <20110112094147.GB24790@1wt.eu>
From: Cedric Vivier <cedricv@neonux.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:58:57 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=GOyehATLpPHgbHOLtEbQ1819hNJzP4wMaVbkT@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Yuta Kitamura <yutak@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fast either
Precedence: list

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 17:41, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> I agree it's random enough, just as the simple 32-bit random XOR is ! And
> that was my point : there is no vulnerability that would remain with the
> simple XOR that the AES would solve since in the end, we're down to just
> a 32-bit randomness.

+1
If there really has to be masking (to protect against potential
intermediaries broken beyond reason), AES cannot protect those 4 bytes
any more than a simple XOR on a 32-bit key.

It is faster to process and simplifies development. Sure, you can link
to OpenSSL or your favorite crypto library from C/C++, it still adds
unnecessary bloat/complexity while also limiting possibility of using
other programming languages to write small/prototype/test WebSocket
servers without installing crypto bindings... (think Lua, Python [AES
not in standard library], ...).

Regards,

Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Thomson, Martin
[hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fast e… Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Adam Barth
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Adam Barth
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Adam Barth
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Adam Barth
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Adam Barth
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Adam Barth
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Scott Ferguson
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Bruce Atherton
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Yuta Kitamura
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fa… Cedric Vivier