Jack Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:21:05PM +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>> Well, that's the exact problem that I pointed out in my previous message - in
>> order to get this right, people have to read the mind of the paper author to
>> divine their intent. Since the
Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:36:52 +0100, Simon Josefsson said:
>
>> 1) It invoke exit, as you have noticed. While this only happen
>> in extreme and fatal situations, and not during runtime,
>> it is not that serious. Yet, I agree it is poor desig
David Wagner wrote:
This just shows the dangers of over-generalization.
One could make an even stronger statement about the dangers of
making assumptions that are not provably correct.
Of course, we have to decide which is more important: integrity,
or availability.
That is a false dicho
John Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Werner Koch retorted:
>> I disagree strongly here. Any code which detects an impossible state
>> or an error clearly due to a programming error by the caller should
>> die as soon as possible.
>
>That is a remarkably unprofessional suggestion. I hope the
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 5:40 PM + 2/12/06, Ben Laurie wrote:
>> It also defends against the MD5 crack, and is one of the recommended
>> IETF solutions to hash problems.
>
> s/recommended/proposed/
>
> The IETF has not recommended any "solutions to hash problems". The sense
> of the room at t
