On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 6:30 PM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, at minimum, that'd mean s/32/128/ in my quoted text > above, and likely more. (Plus, of course, doing the kind > of due-diligence that lead to [1].) > Or, maybe, start at 256. :) Low numbers might encounter all sorts of well-known cryptographic problems, and varying the padding of the domain name with any granularity would tend to narrow the search space for an attacker. I'm not an expert in these matters, though. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
