On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 8:32 PM <aster...@phreaknet.org> wrote:

> Personally, as an active user of chan_iax2 that has submitted
> improvements to it (with no plans to stop using it), better encryption
> than 1024-bit AES would certainly be welcome from my perspective, as an
> end user. The encryption capabilities of chan_iax2 are pretty nice, but
> they could be better.
> I brought this up last year and the feeling at the time was that
> res_crypto should be left alone. 2048-bit or 4096-bit support, whether
> by enhancing res_crypto or something else altogether, would certainly be
> "nice", but if Sangoma wants to stay away from that, that might be that...

If such changes were made to chan_iax2, I do not see that review getting in
for quite a long time due to the necessary deep review and understanding of
things. Encryption is not something you mess around with, doubly so for an
old module that most people don't know the repercussions of with a protocol
that has to be relearned.

Joshua C. Colp
Asterisk Technical Lead
Sangoma Technologies
Check us out at www.sangoma.com and www.asterisk.org
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:

Reply via email to