Re: New Encrypted Data Packet?

Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk> Tue, 05 April 2005 12:23 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13963 for <openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:23:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35C4wUR053328; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 05:04:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j35C4wCl053327; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 05:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j35C4uGO053307 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 05:04:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk)
Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F9D33C33; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 13:04:55 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <42527EE7.2040503@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:04:55 +0100
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
Cc: OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>
Subject: Re: New Encrypted Data Packet?
References: <b0e772ada05344816ca90abd2331a3f9@callas.org>
In-Reply-To: <b0e772ada05344816ca90abd2331a3f9@callas.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jon Callas wrote:
> 
> When the Mister-Zuccherato attack came out at the beginning of the year, 
> one of the suggestions that we had was to re-do the encrypted data 
> packet and MDC. It seems that there's not really a lot of consensus to 
> fix it, that merely working around the problem seems to be adequate? Am 
> I right in that perception? Do we want to upgrade it?

I missed this discussion, I think, and can't seem to find it in the 
archives. Do you have a refrence?

> I still think it's a good idea, myself, particularly since if you want 
> wide deployment of such a thing for the future getting on it now is a 
> good idea. But I would also like to really close out 2440bis, too. 
> (However, the two are not mutually exclusive. We could close out 2440bis 
> and put the upgrades into a followon RFC.)

That sounds like a plan.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff