ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks

2006-02-16 09:06:06

Mark,

Now that I've reset the brain a bit:-)

Mark Delany wrote:
The gap created by the signer is the problem here so the rule needs to
be that a signer must sign from strongest to weakest, WITH NO GAPS.

The assumption that all signers and verifiers have the same idea of an
absolute strength-order for hash algorithms is a bit optimistic.

For example, some countries do insist on national algorithms being
supported - see rfc 4357 for example. I don't think I want to get into
a dispute about whether the Gost-hash is better or worse than sha-256
(or whatever) - do you?

Stephen.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>