Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> writes: >I know its nothing new here. I'm just befuddled why standardized protocols >written in stone by bright folks (IETF, IEEE, et al) continue to suffer >defects that I don't make/endure (because I listen to cryptographers like >you).
Well, I'm not really a cryptographer, but I listen to what the actual cryptographers say :-). I don't understand the resistance either, in the case of TLS it's such a trivial change (in my case it was two lines of code added and two lines swapped, alongside hundreds of lines of ad-hockery dealing with MAC-then-encrypt vulnerabilities sidelined) that it was a complete no-brainer. In case anyone's interested, the bikeshedding starts here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg09161.html The full thread is: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/threads.html#09161 We really need a few more cryptographers to weigh in (hint, hint), at the moment the opposition to the change seems to be mostly based on speculation and/or "I don't want to change my code". Peter. _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
