[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A pothole in ISAKMP/Oakley
- To: saiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ("LUIS SAIZ GIMENO")
- Subject: Re: A pothole in ISAKMP/Oakley
- From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:24:43 -0400
- Address: 1 Amherst St., Cambridge, MA 02139
- Cc: ipsec@xxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: "LUIS SAIZ GIMENO"'s message of Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:39:11 +0200,<>
- Phone: (617) 253-8091
- Sender: owner-ipsec@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:39:11 +0200
From: saiz@gc.ssr.upm.es ("LUIS SAIZ GIMENO")
Non-monotonically doesn't implies (strong)pseudorandomness. Must we
check for randomness too?
No, but it's an easy check to prevent really bad implementations. Yes,
it's easy enough to pass that check without doing it with good random
number generator... but see my question about what level of
stupidity/hostility are we expecting from our implementors?
- Ted