[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Mandatory Algorithm Changes?

2005-02-21 02:23:38

Jon Callas wrote:

Mandatory-to-implement does not mean mandatory-to-use.

If we change 3DES to AES, things don't instantly stop working. If we do that, 3DES would be a SHOULD, of course, and there will be a note that says that if you don't implement 3DES there could be interoperability issues.

I don't think that any reasonable implementor is going to run right out and code stupidly. It will obviously take a couple of years before someone can safely assume, for example, that the algorithm-of-last-resort would be AES.

However, if we ever want to roll 3DES over to AES, we have to start sometime. The couple of years of bake-in doesn't start until a change is made. Why not now?

I'm willing to concede the point on SHA-256, I wouldn't have brought it up at all if NIST hadn't said a couple days ago they're phasing out SHA-1 and rolling to SHA-256.

Oops. What I said was that this seems like a candidate for having flags in the PGP certificates that say what is supported by the receiving application(s).




"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff