Re: Regarding DES/3DES

Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com> Tue, 16 May 2000 16:50 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17966; Tue, 16 May 2000 09:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA14957 Tue, 16 May 2000 11:36:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <14625.27840.954459.565468@xedia.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:44:00 -0400
To: Dominique.Bastien@abl.ca
Cc: RuheenaR@future.futsoft.com, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: Regarding DES/3DES
References: <C5B7AD50B789D31191B400805F9F52CB1FC624@exchange1.abl.ca>
X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> "Dominique" == Dominique Bastien <Dominique.Bastien@abl.ca> writes:

 Dominique> I send you a text from The ESP Triple DES Transform draft
 Dominique> "draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-des3-00.txt" ... A key that
 Dominique> is identical to a previous key MAY be rejected....

 Dominique> If you K1 and K2 are identical it's just like DES with K3.

You quoted an out of date document.  Use RFC 2451 instead.  It says
that K1 == K2 MUST be rejected, which is only reasonable...

     paul