IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649C61A0180; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:06:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gopa-5ovGDFk; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:06:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCCF1A011D; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:06:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 75-138-17-190.fibertel.com.ar ([190.17.138.75] helo=[192.168.3.102]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1W5fiQ-0001iD-Hv; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:06:22 +0100
Message-ID: <52DEB703.209@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:05:55 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
References: <20140121155253.23475.70004.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <52DE9E63.5050404@si6networks.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346D8@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E63346D8@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:06:29 -0000

On 01/21/2014 02:40 PM, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> See (and cite) RFC6151 section 2.
> 
> MD5 is still useful as a checksum for really big files, where you're
> looking for accidental differences introduced by errors, and MD5's
> efficiency of computation is a win. But that says nothing about being
> tamper-proof. Think of it as a big CRC32, and CRC32 is not seen as
> having security properties.
> 
> In an explicit crypto hash context where you're relying on the
> security properties, don't use MD5.

Thanks Lloyd. :-)

So it seems clear that MD5 should be removed as an example. Now the
question seems to be whether should actually ditch MD5....

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email