IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] minutes part 2

"Vishwas Manral" <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 18 December 2008 01:55 UTC

Return-Path: <opsec-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D1A3A69F3; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:55:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61433A69F3 for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:55:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FD+k18SdqfUs for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:55:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f21.google.com (mail-bw0-f21.google.com [209.85.218.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E26D3A69E3 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:55:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so743932bwz.13 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:55:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=6rXLeJmEwaZciVTaGziwHzWhJhGpmTKYpNEutdo47l4=; b=BbA202vKqlQsrnJ9Z4E/LWbxQu2x5Hh9aEugjeN+n6CXcFvq4mU38yVMww/xY+Yn3o uAJgr0RP+4ShW5ed1AYfO4LoTP1mNvhmnUUcuPluilQttD7MQVOWGjpMnwSEp6DkeU6d j8HSBpLgMVramOEYAGe6AySXjAnfzoKDkG2bo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=O0Q7BF4S0ddU/Qx5Pn/Yb6ZH7IcnELk2KFnD8OjrUOMvkzArWeAn7QSUm5nOwPIoHF Ofe5Eqx7V0IzsIidVUyB2FukY3BCPLi8DVG/Eiu1skKIRxrvWlj/5I+WA7CXqGQ9r/4U KQAZDThz3qLaMJGCuyf8m6P8jNQleFknjXRBw=
Received: by 10.181.18.2 with SMTP id v2mr458277bki.194.1229565303184; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.181.31.13 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <77ead0ec0812171755h4512ce7dvf5f02205015c9111@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:55:03 -0800
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: R Atkinson <ran.atkinson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <286BDFBC-58E6-401D-B2DB-90237AB558EA@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <EC3F7E1D-F7C8-484A-A0C0-1A25E79AD86E@extremenetworks.com> <77ead0ec0812160927j77bf42c6mbccef8ccf55d1e16@mail.gmail.com> <90F75653-21D6-4D2B-9472-52F2BDF7510D@gmail.com> <77ead0ec0812161118l3ca37732m541deb4c716a8f42@mail.gmail.com> <0C823E84-78EE-4234-9AD8-20688B0F8F55@gmail.com> <77ead0ec0812161616r5cc782c5j69415f75d4aa82bb@mail.gmail.com> <7EBC9C5C-EDF9-4CDD-8E1B-B9D05656ACAA@gmail.com> <92c950310812171706y3902b3edm76bec430f4adf804@mail.gmail.com> <286BDFBC-58E6-401D-B2DB-90237AB558EA@gmail.com>
Cc: opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] minutes part 2
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/opsec>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Ran/ Glen,

Let me get back on this to you on this one.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:47 PM, R Atkinson <ran.atkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On  17 Dec 2008, at 20:06, Glen Kent wrote:
>>>
>>> I object to the assertions in those minutes that:
>>>      - the SHA approaches are better/stronger than MD5 approaches.
>>>        [We have agreed that the evidence does NOT support such a
>>>        claim -- which claim appears to be in the meeting minutes.]
>>>
>>>      - the WG should recommend/encourage/promote SHA approaches
>>>        over MD5 approaches. [which claim again appears to be
>>>        in the meeting minutes]
>>
>> So you're asserting that Md5 is as strong as SHA. Can you please confirm
>> this?
>
> No.  I'm asserting that:
>
>  At present, there is no data indicating that MD5
>  (as used for IGP authentication) is either stronger
>  or weaker than SHA (as used for IGP authentication).
>
>
> There was a time (now past) where there were published
> concerns about the compression function of MD5
> [Dobbertin1996] but there were not equivalent concerns
> about SHA.  I cited specific published papers that now
> indicate strong concerns with the compression function
> of SHA.  I also cited a NIST formal statement indicating
> that there were "serious attacks" on the compression
> function of SHA.  (In both cases, I provided specific
> URLs yesterday in email to the OPsec list.)
>
> Yours,
>
> Ran Atkinson
> rja@extremenetworks.com
>
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
OPSEC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email