IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: resistance to swamping attacks.

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com> Fri, 20 September 1996 18:51 UTC

Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa27948; 20 Sep 96 14:51 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id OAA16333; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:55:26 -0400
Received: from sol.hq.tis.com(10.33.1.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma016304; Fri, 20 Sep 96 14:54:56 -0400
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA26843; Fri, 20 Sep 96 14:54:06 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id OAA16298; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:54:54 -0400
Received: from capone.ch.apollo.hp.com(15.254.24.3) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma016294; Fri, 20 Sep 96 14:54:50 -0400
Received: from thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us (thunk.ch.apollo.hp.com) by capone.ch.apollo.hp.com id <AA174245826@capone.ch.apollo.hp.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:57:07 -0400
Received: from thunk (sommerfeld@localhost) by thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA00486; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:57:06 -0400
Message-Id: <199609201857.OAA00486@thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us>
X-Authentication-Warning: thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us: sommerfeld owned process doing -bs
To: touch@isi.edu
Cc: kim@morningstar.com, ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: resistance to swamping attacks.
In-Reply-To: touch's message of Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:27:56 -0700. <199609201727.AA02219@ash.isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:57:02 -0400
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

> Aren't authentication functions symmetric, almost by definition?
> 
> Joe

well, RSA signatures aren't (expense depends on the length of the
exponent and the public exponent is usually made short so signature
verification is fast at the expense of making signing expensive) but
those are clearly too expensive to use in per-packet transforms.

				- Bill

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status