IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] minutes part 2

"Glen Kent" <glen.kent@gmail.com> Thu, 18 December 2008 01:06 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 3492A3A6B56; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:06:43 -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 4D13C3A6B56 for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:06:42 -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 bbUwr9F4Ks-E for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:06:41 -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 579813A66B4 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:06:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so697164bwz.13 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:06:32 -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=hpwdWO+cl+oY80eltFkXV0T2gb9aB1BhzsSBTr62lm0=; b=WSQ4NQnnvzc6Am0GVAzvNX90EYw+NtB4sdU+QNtdsYfZGUbTyCqJ6PCkgWJ+1oTYkK uAMbyFTT9+M/7XerlXQz7VXvIZk/H/5ZBFoOoa3QAeHjPaHBSREJN2P+YHjZV5ZPADDf eODL+oPRJF3aB2uU4x3fUZZdbpXacydxbGGu8=
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=jUh89VsBrVIiOGLZ7fhe8SmrvNpSQcjP+SJXBsD+RIfddOQm75qa/4HQvAC0JQc54s ICV72ksH1qwZSVyvuv16aBLraJzNjxbOyADRkdTSCA45fSFhQHW3y9XIAkfa4uzFOgLk PLllTOSQCh5DfqoJOgKJ9n+YlPFJEKn5cqQzo=
Received: by 10.103.238.4 with SMTP id p4mr531437mur.68.1229562392517; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.160.12 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:06:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <92c950310812171706y3902b3edm76bec430f4adf804@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:36:32 +0530
From: Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com>
To: R Atkinson <ran.atkinson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7EBC9C5C-EDF9-4CDD-8E1B-B9D05656ACAA@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>
Cc: 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

> 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?

Glen
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
OPSEC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email