IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> Mon, 10 January 2011 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ferg@caucho.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AEF3A6AFF for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:05:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.430, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SYG-GR95KMGP for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm22-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm22-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E6023A69CC for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:05:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [98.139.91.62] by nm22.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2011 18:07:28 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.46] by tm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2011 18:07:28 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1046.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2011 18:07:28 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 933451.30954.bm@omp1046.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 39632 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2011 18:07:28 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (ferg@66.92.8.203 with plain) by smtp112.biz.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jan 2011 10:07:28 -0800 PST
X-Yahoo-SMTP: L1_TBRiswBB5.MuzAo8Yf89wczFo0A2C
X-YMail-OSG: js.nIrMVM1n.AhzXkZ1M0Fv5r8Q8Pwce23Ct.uZ5voVAQav ZNQ8UyqnbkoIJ4XBjW489lCHsP9AmWmALP7CDSOMQSfGjPhlQVCmW.4tPSnv OoZtxWonpj6Mu9Wtdd9MN6InCWjQNa6o_R3URCpNU8GcmKbg_hGVbyCKz4Vv BIPzSS_mz86ziBsVk0ytzDMP2AMs6IjJwcqy0nbYuN5pY_cTpGzzMUZfQvIe iacXf6oAkoqP9NpTfryK6j4ZQalNawLzpwUou1L_gzQqAaxt5oMjRxg--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <4D2B4AD7.80100@caucho.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:07:19 -0800
From: Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
References: <20110110000908.GD5743@1wt.eu> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F5258EEC@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <20110110063646.GJ5743@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20110110063646.GJ5743@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] AES-128-CTR not much safer, but not fast either
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:05:15 -0000

Willy Tarreau wrote:
>   2) it was speculated that some lazy intermediaries might possibly skip
>      over whatever they did not understand to resync on an HTTP request
>      they understand and execute it....

Has anyone attempted to justify this claim?

It's implicit in the entire discussion about hash algorithms, but I 
haven't seen an argument that any intermediary, lazy or not, has or will 
ever implement any kind of HTTP resyncing.

-- Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email