IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 'monotonic increasing'

Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU> Fri, 17 February 2006 23:09 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1FAEjZ-0000Op-Nf; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:09:53 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1FAEjY-0000Ok-Fh for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:09:52 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22604 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:08:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu ([18.7.7.80]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FAEy3-00082D-QR for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:24:53 -0500
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id k1HN9llM015817; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:09:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [18.18.1.160] (NOME-KING.MIT.EDU [18.18.1.160]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as raeburn@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.1/8.12.4) with ESMTP id k1HN9hUq008273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:09:45 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <008d01c63406$5e734aa0$0601a8c0@pc6>
References: <200601301716.JAA16888@gra.isi.edu> <002501c628af$62188600$0601a8c0@pc6> <014601c633dd$82948bc0$0601a8c0@pc6> <43F621B7.3090207@dial.pipex.com> <021d01c633f2$7ab014a0$0601a8c0@pc6> <43F63719.3020402@dial.pipex.com> <008d01c63406$5e734aa0$0601a8c0@pc6>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <1A382CCF-8A9D-4F4A-B517-AC008AB3AB31@mit.edu>
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:09:39 -0500
To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@dial.pipex.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2)
X-Spam-Score: 1.217
X-Spam-Level: * (1.217)
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Huh.  You learn somethin' new every day...

On Feb 17, 2006, at 16:06, Tom.Petch wrote:
> I agree that there is no clear cut case where security will be  
> compromised, but
> as long as RFC eg RFC1510 (kerberos) tie the concept of nonce to a  
> monotonic
> increasing sequence, I think the risk is there and could easily be  
> avoided if we
> started using the term 'strictly increasing' instead.

Fortunately, it just so happens that we dropped that text in updating  
1510=>4120. :-)

Ken

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email