Re: [TLS] [Cfrg] 3DES diediedie

[Hubert Kario <[e-mail]>]

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 13:55:47 CEST Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> writes:
> >IIRC the IoT marketing term doesn't have a very long history so I don't
> >really know what substance lies behind that remark.
> 
> I just used "IoT" because someone else had used it, since it's about as
> well- defined as "Web 2.0" I agree that it's not terribly useful to define
> a feature set.  What I meant was low-power embedded, smart meters and the
> like, IoT in the sense of "little internet-enabled things".

while others define it as "anything that is not a general purpose computer, 
tablet or phone", in effect including also SCADA, TVs, ATMs, traffic lights, 
etc.

and for those you need proper encryption
 
> >>(I've always wanted to sit down and design a generic "encrypted pipe from
> >>A
> >>to B using minimal resources" spec, and I'm sure many other people have
> >>had
> >>the same thought at one time or another).
> >
> >Then why don't you do that?
> 
> It's a bit like designing a new { OS | programming language | network
> protocol
> | ... }, everybody who works in the relevant field would like to have a go
> | at
> 
> something like this, and probably have a lot of fun fiddling with it, but
> I'm not sure how much appeal it would have to anyone apart from the person
> playing with it.  So the answer is "for the same reason I haven't had a go
> at designing a new OS, programming language, network protocol, etc".

we have enough problems weeding out implementation mistakes in TLS, we don't 
need yet another protocol and two dozen implementations that come with it

-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic